"The High Court reached the correct decision in acquitting Pell" after it was pointed out by Mr Mark Weinberg that Pell wasn't dressed for the occasion.

How does that sound?

As always it seems that The Law and Justice have little in common.

To Alan B

"The court of the public?" If that isn't the legal ssystem working in the courts, then all it is, is a lynch mob. There is no justice in a lynch mob. Which is what the legal courts were almost turned into.

From the beginning of nag there was something suspect about the court case, because it started with police advertising for witnesses against Pell to step forward. It didn't start with a case against Pell, it started by looking for a case against him. From there too much of the deal was around the Catholic Church being on trial and enticing popular opinion against Pell as a representives of the Catholic Church.

Is this not how this circus started and continued on? The people were prepped for a hanging of a cardinal. So to answer for the belief and accusations of abuse by Catholic priests. At the start and still going on the "public" had no concern if Pell was innocent or guilty. They've already made that decision, and were ready to hang him if that was a legal option. The public was shot with a dose of hateful hype and it acted as a lynch mob. Let the legal system take the ropes away from an over emotional and anti-Catholic masses that have no focus on justice. The hope from there is that the courts would not be part of the lynch mob itself and would look for guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know about you but the fact that the high court had to correct the lower courts in this aspect gives me little confidance in the legal system right now.

To the rest of ya, who are set on justice against Pell.

Take account of Pell's guilt or innocence. If you do not leave it up to the courts, and "know" that Pell is guilty. Then that knowledge should be paired with some kind of evidance or experienced trauma. Either you yourself having been harmed by Pell, or someone you personally know was harmed by him. If that is not the case, then you are caught up in a public hype that has consumed you and those of your peers who "know" Pell is guilty.

Just step away from the lynch mob mentality. It is harmful to you and to society as a whole. If a priest has abused you or someone you know, that isn't an excuse to imprison an innocent man. Pell does not represent the actual abuse near you, unless it was Pell who did it. Nor is justice done by letting Pell go to prison for the anger towards a different priest. That is where things have settled as far as I can tell. It isn't about justice with regards to Pell, it's about sending someone, anyone, that is in the Catholic Church to prison as a representative of wrongs done, or wrongs assumed, by the Catholic Church.

Don't get caught up in that kind of "justice." Because there is no justice in it.

Essentially Cardinal Pell's freedom by the high court
does not mean that Cardinal Pell did not perpetrate the
abhorrent acts of which he was convicted earlier.

It only means instead that the available evidence could not
prove the crimes "beyond reasonable doubt."

Professor David Hamer of the University of Sydney said:

"The Pell case was complex and even legal experts had
different readings and views of it and the high court
decision."

He reminded us that the "very nature of sexual assault
is complex. It regularly occurs in private, the victims
themselves are often the only witnesses, there are
generally long delays before disclosure, there is
rarely any physical evidence, and the case often
centres on issues of credibility."

We also have the entrenchment throughout society of
misconceptions and stereotypes about victim/survivors
(often the victims are blamed for their own victimisation
and children routinely lieing).

Prof. Hamer says "these aspects pose a unique set of
challenges to the traditional judicial processing of
cases."

"Reforms need to move towards addressing how the system
can be more responsive to victim/survivors justice needs."

"What's to say the high court had it right?
You had a jury process that functioned, you had a court of
appeal that by majority agreed with them, and gave it
serious consideration, and a high court who saw it
differently."

"There's no system that is flawless. Juries will give
verdicts that are perverse or unreasonable and,
sometimes, so will judges."

I thin we have to understand that justice is not perfect
and it can't always be perfect. It's the case that
sometimes innocent people are convicted and guilty
people aren't. What our courts strive for is a system
that eliminates errors as far as possible. But it is
impossible to think of criminal trials as a process of a
perfect case being put to a perfect jury.

Prof. Hamer adds that trial procedures were being
continuously reformed to assist jurors to do their jobs
and to lesson chances of error.

The reality is that Pell has always been a conservative that holds traditional 'Christian' values. That is his number one crime as far as those who deny that sex outside of marriage is sin, homosexuality is perversion and that divorce is sin.

People use to 'joke' about living in sin. Nowadays if told they manifest like many of the regressives have displayed on olo over the High Court proving that Pell's convictions were a result of a witch hunt by haters.

As someone who dislikes the pope and the catholic church I find it astounding that the regressives openly now reject the rule of law. I knew they sunk low but only one thing is worse than paedophile and that is those who label innocent people paedophiles. They use the same tactics of labelling people deniers or Nazis when they know they can't win a logical argument.