And while we await the outcome of the appeal there are petitions online calling for Pell to be stripped of his Order of Australia.

I remember Lindy, there is some of the same "look at me righteousness" about. Lets see the what happens on appeal.

McCakie if you are talking about Lindy Chamberlain just remember she was actually innocent and suffered the loss of her child and jailing for years. I for one thought she was guilty and felt badly about my judgement after all the facts were known. These cases are not at all similar.
What to do, one's calm and innocent is another's smug and guilty.
Rely on a jury. From what I have seen they take it very seriously, pay attention and I am sure carefully consider the facts. I would trust a jury rather than judges applying law but look at poor Lindy.

Banjo,

The question should be why are the left whingers happy about crooks such as McDonald being freed after their jury convictions were overturned while cleaving to the sanctity of the jury conviction of Pell based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness especially as previous trial could not convince a majority of jurors?

.

According to the Crime and Corruption Commission of Queensland, only about a quarter of sexual offences are reported to police and only about 17% of those reported result in a conviction – a figure consistent with data from other States and overseas.

Consequently, only about 4.25% of sexual offenders are brought to answer for their crimes. The other 95.75% are deemed to be innocent and get off scot free. For the victims to obtain justice, one or more of the following conditions must be met :

1. Significant material evidence
2. A credible eye-witness
3. Proof that the victim did not consent
4. Admission of guilt by the offender

The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. The onus of proof is on the accuser.

Minors and very young victims are psychologically incapable of seeking justice until long after having been sexually abused – typically 20, 30 or even 40 years later. Such long delays render justice inoperative. It’s just a matter of “my word against yours”. In such cases, there is necessarily doubt as to who is telling the truth and who isn’t – and the benefit of the doubt is attributed to the accused by virtue of the sacrosanct principle of the “presumption of innocence”. The victim (the accuser) is presumed to be lying.

The “presumption of innocence” is an effective means of guaranteeing legal immunity to sex offenders and denying justice to the millions of victims it was designed to protect. In its present form justice is counter-productive. It achieves exactly the opposite result to that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime it encourages and facilitates it.

There should be NO PRESUMPTION OF EITHER INNOCENCE OR GUILT. Each case should be judged solely on its merits. THE LAW MUST BE CHANGED – and the sooner the better !
.

http://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications/crime/seeking-justice-summary-report.pdf

.

SM,
You have a point but you forget that Pell's case is in Victoria, which is a different world. Why, they had a mob of red shirts defraud the government and got off and they still will not acknowledge that African gangs roam the streets.

From the list of evidence, the accused should not even have been in court let alone found guilty. Unless the court releases some other extraordinary evidence given by the accuser then Pell has to be acquitted on appeal, purely on the lack of evidence. But somebody altered the rules so supporting evidence is not needed to convict now.

However the public will continue to lose faith in the courts and the jury system