What was done to Pell by an incompetent Victorian court and cheered by the horrible Left haters was one of the greatest injustices in Australian history.

Even when the man was exonerated by the High Court, the ABC haters and their excitable acolytes (including those on OLO) couldn’t let it go. The kangaroo-courters would have done Communist China or Russia proud. They would be in the front row of lynch mobs if greater society hadn't moved on from the wild west.

All the while, Pell remained calm and dignified, with a 'forgive-them-they-know-not-what-they-do attitude to the baying mob. His answer to a question on what he thought about the apparent lack of support from the Australian Catholic Church hierarchy for his cause was, "That’s life".

The Catholic Church's cowardice was disgraceful; hardly better than that of the mob.

This topic has attracted little interest, and only one of the sad woman's pals has supported her. Perhaps most people would prefer to forget that Pell spent 404 days in jail for nothing.

" Pell spent 404 days in jail for nothing."

One of the commentators I saw on the ABC yesterday (yes the ABC - I don't know how it slipped through) called it the most horrendous miscarriage of justice in the whole of Australian history. Perhaps a bit hyperbolic (or as St Julia said - hyperbowlic) but not far from the mark.

SR,

Pell was never proven guilty of any crimes, nor was there any verifiable evidence to this effect, nor did he serve anyone to be abused. Bob Hawke was more guilty of sexual abuse.

P.S. Juliar only instituted the RC after Tony Abbott pushed for it in parliament.

So far there have been 21 responses to this discussion.
Some people responding more than once, myself included.
Of course the responses have been emotional at times.
Which is perfectly understandable considering the subject
matter.

As my earlier link pointed out - For many people in this
country it is hard to understand how the unanimous jury
verdicts of guilty, further supported by a Court of Appeal
majority of two judges, could be overturned by a High Court.

The High Court decision did not find Cardinal Pell innocent.

As the link made clear - he got off on a legal technicality.
And, that this decision will undermine confidence in the
legal system, especially in child sexual abuse prosecutions.

Civil legal actions against the Cardinal and the Church are
ongoing. The release of the Royal Commission's findings about
the Cardinal's conduct in Ballarat are revealing.

The Cardinal's case was exceptionally complex. The link stressed
that it was important for the public to understand the legal
process and the key issues. For example, the High Court appeal
did not ask whether Cardinal Pell committed the offences. It
asked whether the two majority judges in the Victorian Court
of Appeal in discussing Cardinal Pell's earlier appeal made
an error about the nature of the correct legal principles
in their application.

Cardinal Pell may have won on a legal technicality but he will
continue to be assailed by lawsuits even after death.

In contrast the complainant was believed by a jury, by a
majority judgement, and by a substantial body of public
opinion.

Victorian Premier Dan Andrews said that there will not be a
state funeral out of respect for the victims of sexual abuse
and their families. He also will not be attending the funeral
in Sydney.

" he got off on a legal technicality."

That's very true....if you think that the lack of evidence that he did what his inquisitors said he did was a technicality.

It comes down to this. If you believe that rape took place then you have to believe that only three people were in the room when it happened.
Two of those people said nothing happened. One claimed otherwise. Based on the claims of that one person and without the slightest collaborating evidence, a man had his liberty stolen.

That's not how justice works. We can be thankful that 7 of the most prominent judges in the land saw through the inquisition and freed its victim. I doubt we can rely on that forever.

Foxy,

The two possible verdicts are guilty or innocent. The high court judged Pell innocent.

The "technicality" that led the High Court unanimously to throw out the verdicts of the incompetent Victorian judges was the complete lack of verifiable evidence. The judge that allowed a jury verdict based on emotion without verifiable evidence should be disbarred.