Good Morning Shadow Minister,

People are certainly entitled to their opinions.
But they should not make irresponsible claims that
are supposedly based on "overwhelming evidence"
as Mr Andrew Bolt and others have done.

As the wife of a man who was sexually abused wrote
in her open letter to Bolt:

"Any opinion I have is irrelevant and ill informed,
because I am not privy to ALL the facts of the case."

"How about everyone stop trying to convince people
of Pell's innocence or guilt. It is not the most
important issue here."

"We have hundreds, potentially thousands of survivors
throughout Australia who have not yet come forward.
And when the likes of yourself, and other commentators,
use your public profile to cast doubt over the
outcome of a trial, you make these people even less
likely to come forward and get the assistance they so
desperately need."

This case is not about ideology nor different strands of
Catholicism nor about a man who was a lightning rod for
dissent in his church.

This case was about child protection.

In this case child protection lost.

The high court did not ask whether Pell committed the
offences. It asked whether the two majority judges in
the high court of appeal, in dismissing Pell's earlier
appeal, made an error about the nature of the correct
legal principles, or their application.

The high court's decision is also both for the
legal world and for society more broadly difficult or
even for many people it will be impossible
to understand how the unanimous jury verdicts of guilty,
further supported by a court of appeal, majority of two
judges, can be overturned.

This high court decision may undermine confidence in the
legal system, especially in child sexual abuse
prosecutions.

Civil legal actions against Pell are ongoing, so his
legal battles aren't over yet. More civil lawsuits may
well follow, especially after the release of the
royal commission's findings about his conduct in
Ballarat.

See you on another discussion. It's time to move on
with this one.

Foxy really?

"This case was about child protection.

In this case child protection lost."

So child protection depends on convicting an innocent man?

Seriously..

Shadow Minister,

His innocence has not been proven.
The high court judgement found there was
not enough evidence to convict him.

As one devout Catholic said to another devout
Catholic:

"We'll never find anyone like Cardinal Pell."

REPLY:

"That's the point!"

'His innocence has not been proven.
The high court judgement found there was
not enough evidence to convict him.'

same for every person on earth Foxy including you.

runner,

No. it's not the same for every person.
Not the same at all.

Peter O'Brien points out that "Hundreds of
potentially innocent people are languishing in prison.
They won't get the chance that Cardinal George Pell did."

"They don't have the funds, nor the fame to appeal to
the high court in the manner Pell did. And in the rare case
where they are able to attempt it, they are entirely
unlikely to be granted special leave to appeal as Pell was."

It's hard to claim Pell faced an injustice. He was granted
every opportunity the legal system provides, including some
of the finest barristers and appeals right up to the high
court - a privilege not granted to many.

if spending 400 plus days in prison for something the High Court said was highly improbable is not injustice then you have no idea of what justice is despite your endless opinions by journalist and lawyers with egg all over their faces. It was a witch hunt in reverse cheered on by hatred and very dishonest Victorian police, judges and the abc/guardian.