Misopinionated,

Your pre-adolescent assertion, about the Pell witch-trial:

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

i.e. you assume what needs to be proven, i.e. they call that "begging the question". Maybe you need to study some philosophy, especially logic, if you ever get to uni. Get a copy of Copi as a start.

But conspiracy theories do save you a lot of time thinking, don't they ?

"And of course Pell must be guilty, regardless of no evidence; he's a Catholic; he's probably a poofter. So we have to keep digging, we have to find someone to make a baseless assertion. Sooner or later, we'll get him. "

Is that it ? So you're not into the scientific method, then ? Don't they teach any of that at TAFE?

Joe

Dear Foxy,

You say the legal system is not flawless.

I would go one up on that and say that I personally would never trust a lawyer as far as I could throw one.

Loudmouth,

I didn't write the second citation you have put above.

It looks like you are trying to make it look as if I did. That's a bit perverse.

Maybe it is for the best that you were never able to qualify to get into Arts. Just stick to reading what you can and pretending you are an Arts graduate.

Foxy,

The high court judges did not describe witness J as credible, that is a step beyond being "compelling" Note conmen are compelling but not credible not that I am calling witness J a conman.

You and others are using the term "technicality" to try and trivialise the decision. The verdict of the high court is final and damning of the previous courts. The burden of proof was not missed by a whisker, but by a country mile. A "technicality" might include that the accused is simply innocent.

Banjo,

You are trying to hyperbolize the verdict of "not guilty" to be synonymous with "guilty and got away with it" which is simply an impotent attempt at a smear and assumes that anyone brought to court is guilty.

Barry Cassidy is correct. End of story.

" ... ABC commentator Barry Cassidy tweeted after Pell's acquittal that "The High Court has found there was not enough evidence to convict. It didn't find him innocent. You are then entitled to maintain your view and you are under no obligation to apologize for holding those views."

Shadow Minister,

What you or I think is irrelevant.

Here is a link from legal academics on the Pell case.
Kindly read the summary of the key events.
You may get a better grasp of the high court
decision:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6715000/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality/