Listened briefly to a shock jock earlier, curiosity and enlightenment. Was not disappointed.I listened to AJ this morning as well, and he stated as well that Pell was wearing an Alb at the time of the alleged attack, for those that don't know, an Alb is a white garment which is worn by the priests at church, now according to those that know, an Alb can only be fitted through the neck, and it goes all the way down to the ankles so I have read, very hard to sexually penetrate someone when you have an Alb on, there's something about this case that doesn't stack up!
Inferred was a stitch up and/or unfair, due to pells converstive views on marriage and the kicker, climate change. Shazam.
I listened to AJ this morning as well, and he stated as well that Pell was wearing an Alb at the time of the alleged attack,Was he there? How does he know? Short answer - he doesn't know. With a record like his, why anybody would take Jones' word on anything baffles me.
Because he read it in the papers, it was in the Australian from an article from a Frank Brenan, who is also a priest, and yes, I believe HE would knowI listened to AJ this morning as well, and he stated as well that Pell was wearing an Alb at the time of the alleged attack,Was he there? How does he know? Short answer - he doesn't know. With a record like his, why anybody would take Jones' word on anything baffles me.
Richter is Pell’s defender, his comment is not an admission of guilt, guilt was already declared by the jury.Yes, Richter was very clear in stating he was only arguing the sentence and that he still maintained Pell was innocent.
…
This will have no bearing on any subsequent appeals.
Richter’s statement was purely an attempt to mitigate penalty - assholeish? Yes, but entirely legitimate in the circumstance, he is effectively obligated to make statements to cast the offences in a better light.An attempt to avoid a custodial sentence completely was only ever going to be laughed at, so conceding that custody is warranted and pushing for a shorter one is the only 'win' that Richter has left to fight for.
Fortunately, in this particular case, the learned trial judge saw the comments exactly as he should have.
Because he read it in the papers, it was in the Australian from an article from a Frank Brenan, who is also a priest, and yes, I believe HE would know.If he wasn't there, he doesn't know. It may well be the custom, but whatever Brennan said is not evidence that it was actually done unless he saw it himself. That's the law. Then, it follows that what Jones says is hearsay and also not admissible as evidence ( not that Jones would care - safe in the legend of his own infallibility).
He will most likely go to protective which will mean solitary. He won’t be allowed to be Chaplain if that is the case.Will not happen. Will be prisoner number whatever. Sharkey whilst in prison had Father Sharkey on his wheel chair and was made to remove it.
Even if he is in a position to become Chaplain I feel that would be a ‘privilege’ he does deserve and should not be given.
Once a Tyke.Because he read it in the papers, it was in the Australian from an article from a Frank Brenan, who is also a priest, and yes, I believe HE would knowI listened to AJ this morning as well, and he stated as well that Pell was wearing an Alb at the time of the alleged attack,Was he there? How does he know? Short answer - he doesn't know. With a record like his, why anybody would take Jones' word on anything baffles me.
Kind Regards
I listened to AJ this morning as well, and he stated as well that Pell was wearing an Alb at the time of the alleged attack, for those that don't know, an Alb is a white garment which is worn by the priests at church, now according to those that know, an Alb can only be fitted through the neck, and it goes all the way down to the ankles so I have read, very hard to sexually penetrate someone when you have an Alb on, there's something about this case that doesn't stack up!Typical obfuscation by the Catholic Church; its modus operandi. It was oral penetration and supposedly he simply lifted up his robe.
…………………………
…………………,very hard to sexually penetrate someone when you have an Alb on, ……………………..The obvious, if rather unkind, question is ‘How would they know?’.
Typical obfuscation by the Catholic Church; its modus operandi. It was oral penetration and supposedly he simply lifted up his robe.Agreed. I can't believe that he couldn't go for a wee wee when he was wearing full fancy dress. Same applies if he wanted to reach for his tackle for other purposes.
I for one believe that he is innocent, and did not commit oral penetration as alleged, I don't believe that a man in his high ranking position, as he was at the supposed time would do such a thing, fortunately there is an appeal's process, and if he losses that, well yes, I will gladly hold my hand up and admit I was wrong.You are a man of great faith and trust but unfortunately history proves it unfounded. High rank stands for nothing. A bishop in USA has just been de-frocked for child sexual abuse. The late Bishop Mulkearns aided and abetted paedophile priests in his diocese for years, and so on and on.
I just wanted to note in passing that I am not a catholic, just in case anyone had any misgivings, it's just based on my own personal opinion, and what I have heard of the matterI for one believe that he is innocent, and did not commit oral penetration as alleged, I don't believe that a man in his high ranking position, as he was at the supposed time would do such a thing, fortunately there is an appeal's process, and if he losses that, well yes, I will gladly hold my hand up and admit I was wrong.You are a man of great faith and trust but unfortunately history proves it unfounded. High rank stands for nothing. A bishop in USA has just been de-frocked for child sexual abuse. The late Bishop Mulkearns aided and abetted paedophile priests in his diocese for years, and so on and on.
One is expected to believe, as you do, that high ranking position means less likelihood of offending. In fact, high office seems to mean less chance of getting caught simply because some people believe this.
I was not in court; I did not hear the evidence; I am in no position to decide whether he is guilty or innocent. I suggest that you are in exactly the same position. Meanwhile a court of competent jurisdiction has heard and deliberated and reached a verdict of guilty. The deliberation was not rushed - it went for 3 days if I recall correctly.
I can understand people wanting to believe in virtue, but I don't think the belief is founded on fact.
I for one believe that he is innocent, and did not commit oral penetration as alleged, I don't believe that a man in his high ranking position, as he was at the supposed time would do such a thing, fortunately there is an appeal's process, and if he losses that, well yes, I will gladly hold my hand up and admit I was wrong.
Kind Regards
Was Frank Brenan there? No? Then, no he doesn't know, and a rational person would not believe he does know.Because he read it in the papers, it was in the Australian from an article from a Frank Brenan, who is also a priest, and yes, I believe HE would knowI listened to AJ this morning as well, and he stated as well that Pell was wearing an Alb at the time of the alleged attack,Was he there? How does he know? Short answer - he doesn't know. With a record like his, why anybody would take Jones' word on anything baffles me.
Kind Regards
I for one believe that he is innocent, and did not commit oral penetration as alleged, I don't believe that a man in his high ranking position, as he was at the supposed time would do such a thing, fortunately there is an appeal's process, and if he losses that, well yes, I will gladly hold my hand up and admit I was wrong.Peter Liddy sends you his regards.
Kind Regards
Mate, Frank Brenan doesn't have to be there, the fact of the matter is, that he would know about what goes on in the inner sanctum, and what garments the priests would wear during the service, he was just spelling it out in the paper, as is his right to do so.Was Frank Brenan there? No? Then, no he doesn't know, and a rational person would not believe he does know.Because he read it in the papers, it was in the Australian from an article from a Frank Brenan, who is also a priest, and yes, I believe HE would knowI listened to AJ this morning as well, and he stated as well that Pell was wearing an Alb at the time of the alleged attack,Was he there? How does he know? Short answer - he doesn't know. With a record like his, why anybody would take Jones' word on anything baffles me.
Kind Regards
Oh? Well to which flavour of the sui generis do you subscribe? You seem pretty assured that a fellow subscriber couldn't do wrong... LDS I guess?I just wanted to note in passing that I am not a catholic, just in case anyone had any misgivings, it's just based on my own personal opinion, and what I have heard of the matterI for one believe that he is innocent, and did not commit oral penetration as alleged, I don't believe that a man in his high ranking position, as he was at the supposed time would do such a thing, fortunately there is an appeal's process, and if he losses that, well yes, I will gladly hold my hand up and admit I was wrong.You are a man of great faith and trust but unfortunately history proves it unfounded. High rank stands for nothing. A bishop in USA has just been de-frocked for child sexual abuse. The late Bishop Mulkearns aided and abetted paedophile priests in his diocese for years, and so on and on.
One is expected to believe, as you do, that high ranking position means less likelihood of offending. In fact, high office seems to mean less chance of getting caught simply because some people believe this.
I was not in court; I did not hear the evidence; I am in no position to decide whether he is guilty or innocent. I suggest that you are in exactly the same position. Meanwhile a court of competent jurisdiction has heard and deliberated and reached a verdict of guilty. The deliberation was not rushed - it went for 3 days if I recall correctly.
I can understand people wanting to believe in virtue, but I don't think the belief is founded on fact.
Kind Regards
Ever had a girlfriend/wife? Ever seen her or some other female wear a one piece dress and use a loo? Ask them how they do that... Even Cardinals need to piss and smeg, whether or not it smells we'll have you interpret.Mate, Frank Brenan doesn't have to be there, the fact of the matter is, that he would know about what goes on in the inner sanctum, and what garments the priests would wear during the service, he was just spelling it out in the paper, as is his right to do so.Was Frank Brenan there? No? Then, no he doesn't know, and a rational person would not believe he does know.Because he read it in the papers, it was in the Australian from an article from a Frank Brenan, who is also a priest, and yes, I believe HE would knowI listened to AJ this morning as well, and he stated as well that Pell was wearing an Alb at the time of the alleged attack,Was he there? How does he know? Short answer - he doesn't know. With a record like his, why anybody would take Jones' word on anything baffles me.
Kind Regards
Kind Regards
