Jimmy Savile

Wonder what the Mad Monk thinks. A bit of an oxymoron I know but it's curious three of his mentors Bronny B, Parrot and Pellvert's have been found to have abused privileges and/or been convicted. Mind you Parrots conviction was under a disgraceful law and has hopefully been quashed.

horace wrote:

skully wrote:I can't find a relevant thread (I considered Aditya's Anal Eroticism thread ) so here's a new one.

Massive headlines in Aus papers. CENSORED - meaning a massive story can't be reported due to  Victorian court suppression order.

For those who don't know...from Washington Post (where it can be reported)...

Spoiler:

I imagine horrie will be giggling.

Not giggling Skully.

In the metaphorical sense i.e. that you were pleased to see the grub convicted.

skully wrote:

horace wrote:

skully wrote:I can't find a relevant thread (I considered Aditya's Anal Eroticism thread ) so here's a new one.

Massive headlines in Aus papers. CENSORED - meaning a massive story can't be reported due to  Victorian court suppression order.

For those who don't know...from Washington Post (where it can be reported)...

Spoiler:

I imagine horrie will be giggling.

Not giggling Skully.

In the metaphorical sense i.e. that you were pleased to see the grub convicted.

.

In that sense, yes.I  am pleased with the conviction, particularly for his victims whose lives have been wrecked. Will be stunned if he serves time. This is really immaterial. The rich, influential and famous rarely do time in Oz. His evil nonsense has been struck a blow and this grub's influence on public life here has been expunged.

The suppression order is in place because of the second case.

Suppression orders are a bit of a joke in this day and age. But I spose there's form to follow. I mean are they allowed to broadcast "Blue Murder" in NSW yet. The mini series from the nineties.

I see Rolf Harris got out last year

taipan wrote:I see Rolf Harris got out last year

Really,

Disappointing

horace wrote:

taipan wrote:I see Rolf Harris got out last year

Really,

Disappointing

The good nes is that Bob Hewitt is still in gaol

I see Rolf is really a silly old qunt now. He was caught prowling a local school. The Principal quick told him to "fark off".

So the suppression order on the Pell conviction has now been lifted.

Hard to see how the verdict doesn't get quashed on appeal.

Aye, he'll unfortch probably get off on appeal.

JGK wrote:So the suppression order on the Pell conviction has now been lifted.

Hard to see how the verdict doesn't get quashed on appeal.  

Why? The Pellvert did not help himself by declining to give evidence.

He did give evidence by way of a written statement. He just didn't give it in the witness box (which is common).

In any case, the evidence against him is flimsy to say the least. Pretty much the word of one man (who himself wasn't subject to cross examination I think) and almost impossible to result in a "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion.

Not that I am a fan of Pell in any way, but everyone is entitled to proper process.

Interested in Bradman's thoughts on it all.

JGK wrote:He did give evidence by way of a written statement.   He just didn't give it in the witness box (which is common).

In any case, the evidence against him is flimsy to say the least.  Pretty much the word of one man (who himself wasn't subject to cross examination I think) and almost impossible to result in a "beyond reasonable doubt" conclusion.

Not that I am a fan of Pell in any way, but everyone is entitled to proper process.

Interested in Bradman's thoughts on it all.

The witness was in the box for a day. Yes re the Pellvert statement, but he clearly wished to avoid cross examination.

Apparently* the defence barrister doesn't let his clients go into the box. So it was a tactical play. Given that Pell generally comes across a a charmless arrogant tosser, it probably wasn't the worst idea. Pell did give full answers to the police as part of his statement.

JGK wrote:Apparently* the defence barrister doesn't let his clients go into the box.  So it was a tactical play. Given that Pell generally comes across a a charmless arrogant tosser, it probably wasn't the worst idea.    Pell did give full answers to the police as part of his statement.

"Answers", not necessarily "full answers".

Pellvert has dropped his bail application sought as part of his appeal and ahead of his sentencing.

On another legal point re Vatican being a State. Does he hold dual nationality? If so could he have his citizenship revoked and be booted back to the Vatican?

There are different types of statements, affidavits; sworn and unsworn. End of the day you can't cross examine a piece of paper. If it was a witness statement that was admitted into evidence it would have to be sworn prior to being admitted even if unsworn at the time (long time since I had to pass an entrance exam though I've dealt with all forms in a civil as opposed to a criminal environment.)

The thing with appeals they're rarely successful in any juridstiction in this country unless you count the avalanche after Woods and the forthcoming avalanche in Victoria. The appeal court will assume the defendant is guilty and can normally overturn only on procedural, miscarriage or new evidence. Whilst in theory it can just say "those twelve whackjobs were off with the fairies"', the guiding principle will be that twelve people having been exposed to all the evidence in all it's forms are better equipped to come to a just decision than three judges with a much more limited exposure.

Thanks for that Qmy.

Bradman wrote:There are different types of statements, affidavits; sworn and unsworn.  End of the day you can't cross examine a piece of paper.  If it was a witness statement that was admitted into evidence it would have to be sworn prior to being admitted even if unsworn at the time (long time since I had to pass an entrance exam though I've dealt with all forms in a civil as opposed to a criminal environment.)

The thing with appeals they're rarely successful in any juridstiction in this country unless you count the avalanche after Woods and the forthcoming avalanche in Victoria.  The appeal court will assume the defendant is guilty and can normally overturn only on procedural, miscarriage or new evidence.  Whilst in theory it can just say "those twelve whackjobs were off with the fairies"', the guiding principle will be that twelve people having been exposed to all the evidence in all it's forms are better equipped to come to a just decision than three judges with a much more limited exposure.

The opposing view holds sway in SA. All trials are before a judge and two assessors

Yeah and you lot still use the byzantine crap for some of it don't you?

Bradman wrote:Yeah and you lot still use the byzantine crap for some of it don't you?

Wigs and shit?

Nah Justinian, or Roman-Dutch if you like. Though I think it's only some civil stuff. Contracts, personal tort, family and the like.

l

Bradman wrote:There are different types of statements, affidavits; sworn and unsworn.  End of the day you can't cross examine a piece of paper.  If it was a witness statement that was admitted into evidence it would have to be sworn prior to being admitted even if unsworn at the time (long time since I had to pass an entrance exam though I've dealt with all forms in a civil as opposed to a criminal environment.)

The thing with appeals they're rarely successful in any juridstiction in this country unless you count the avalanche after Woods and the forthcoming avalanche in Victoria.  The appeal court will assume the defendant is guilty and can normally overturn only on procedural, miscarriage or new evidence.  Whilst in theory it can just say "those twelve whackjobs were off with the fairies"', the guiding principle will be that twelve people having been exposed to all the evidence in all it's forms are better equipped to come to a just decision than three judges with a much more limited exposure.

There must be some chance that they could say that a jury could not have found him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" given the paucity of the evidence. Or at least that the trial judge didn't give the jury appropriate instructions in light of the evidence.