On the topic of Cardinal Pell.

His trial was but a beginning.

There are many more chapters to follow.

'On the topic of Cardinal Pell.

His trial was but a beginning.

There are many more chapters to follow.'

yes Foxy hopefully the defunding of the witch hunters (abc) and a proper investigation in corrupt Victorian court system and police. Maybe Daniel Andrews should also be investigated. Yes more chapters to come hopefully.

Dear Big Nana,

You opinined; "The experienced judge looked at the facts of the case and said that there was no proof that the crime was committed."

Absolute utter hogwash I'm afraid. He said the burden of proof had not been attained. That was despite there being a credible eye witness, the victim.

If you want to continue asserting otherwise please go to the judgement itself and cite me the section where he says there was no proof.

I will even help you out with the link.

http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-12/pell_v_the_queen_2019_vsca_186_-_web.pdf

Dear runner,

You claimed; "spending 400 plus days in prison for something the High Court said was highly improbable"

The High Court did no such thing. You should also go and read their judgement and let me know where on earth they stated anything like what you claimed.
http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2020/HCA/12

SR,

The high court did not claim that witness J was credible either.

The Pell acquittal exposes a lot more than just a kangaroo court system.

It is a demonstration of how there is still a strong bond between the state and religion.

In the medieval period nobody would have blinked an eye at what has happened. In fact if this was the medieval age Pell would never have been indicted full stop! State and religion were virtually two sides of the same coin.

I think the Pell saga shows that religion can still call on the State to shore up it's reputation and protect its position.

Pell got his sentence shortened and the Vatican got off scot-free.

Shadow Minister,

The judges did not accuse the young witness of being a
liar or a fantasist. They did not find his evidence
contained discrepancies or displayed inadequacies.
The young man did not come to testify for any financial
gain. He did it for his friend who died.

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

Legal academics have described Pell as being acquitted on
a legal technicality. At the other extreme, Pell's
supporters suggest that the high court finding means that Pell
should never have been prosecuted.

This disparity highlights the role of the legal system.
Which as we know is not flawless.