Great point baccy, and especially prevalent when something occurred over 30 years ago for which someone now thinks they may have been wronged.
I can't remember what happened 20 years ago, let alone 30 or 40 years.
So what is the effect of ageing on the human brain, and how might this apply in a case where someone is now 70 or 80 years of age and thinks they may have been wronged when they were 20 years of age, and so they decide to commence legal proceedings.
It's crazy.
But it's happening all over the place, and almost exclusively to men. Men are being preyed upon by women who can see the potential for a lucrative payout, or who see an opportunity to seek revenge, or who want to play out some delusional Alzheimers induced false memory, or who want some kind of vindicative revenge for a (perceived) previous wrong that may have never happened.
How can a court say, yes - she is right, we believe her, and no, he is wrong, he looks dodgy, so we can't believe him.
And these 3 person courts are increasingly being made up of 2 women and 1 male judge. So what we get are emotional judgements rather than objective common sense ones, and they are nearly always made in favour of the plaintiff.
50 years ago it was ok and standard behaviour for Italian men to pinch women on the bottom, but it's not ok now. But thousands of Italian women are suing Italian men for being pinched on the bottom 50 years ago, saying they were sexually assaulted, and they now want monetary compensation, many of them demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It's also interesting that some women are now coming forward to point out that some of their brethren are known for lying in the courts, e.g. today's accusations by Pauline Hansen. I think we may see more of this, as more women decide to become honest and clear their consciences.
There are some things which greatly concern me about the Pell judgement, and even more so when I listened to all the interviews with the plaintiffs afterwards, because they almost universally said this was justice against the Catholic church, and they spouted how the Catholic church deserved this judgement, but Not one of the interviews I heard actually addressed the specific case against Pell, it was as if he was being used as a Scapegoat for the wrongs of the Catholic church.
This is why he should be retried. I get the sense that justice has not been done in this individual case.
If they have something against the Catholic church, then they should have the guts to go against the whole church, rather than singling out one man to persecute on the church's behalf.
I read, and listened to all the testimony, and I do not believe he is guilty.
I believe he is being persecuted for the broader crimes of the Catholic church, and the judges are biased, and not wise, and working on emotion rather than common sense.
Gw
Expand
