shadowminister,

Your first sentence is correct and is what I have been saying all along.

Your second sentence is irrelevant to anything I have said, so I don't know why you have said. It doesn't even help to setup you conclusion:

//Thus as Pell was not proven guilty he is presumed innocent.//

This contradicts nothing I have said. It does, however, contradict your initial claim, which I took issue with, that "Pell was found innocent by all 7 high court Judges."

As I have pointed out repeatedly now, there is a difference between factual innocence and the presumption of innocence - the latter of which you have only acknowledged to be the case in more recent communications.

Hi Syoksya,

The following link may be of interest:

http://crikey.com.au/2023/01/13/george-pell-child-abuse-accusations-conviction/

On three separate occasions in the HC judgement they express the fear that "there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted."

They righted that wrong.

S,

You have repeatedly claimed that "As I have pointed out repeatedly now, there is a difference between factual innocence and the presumption of innocence" While this is true in the purest sense, in the case of Pell where there was zero evidence other than the word of a person who stood to gain financially from a guilty verdict and zero witnesses or physical evidence the difference between fact and presumption is pure conjecture more fitted to Schrödinger than OLO.

As Mhaze has pointed out the High Court has frequently used the term innocent related to Pell without any differentiation between not guilty or innocent. In most criminal trials the terms are also used pretty much interchangeably and I remain unconvinced that in criminal trials there is any substance to your arguments.

In fact, the only justification for using this semantic trivia is to enable a partisan view that the defendant was not found innocent and is therefore guilty but has escaped punishment.

Cardinal Pell's case showed that our justice system
needs an overhaul -especially - in cases of child sexual abuse.
Pell was not an ïnnocent man. The High Court simply went by
the current laws of having to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt"
a person's guilt in criminal cases. Pell's case rested on one
person's testimony against his own. His past abuse was not a
consideration.
He was a man with a record of abuse.
Who like Alan Jones used his position of power and influence
to his own advantage. His record of past abuse - was
discounted by the High Court.

Alan Jones also denies his indecent assault charges and we
don't know whether he will sue for defamation or not.

On the law of averages in both these cases - if you have one
complainant - perhaps two, but when the numbers start to
mount up - to three, four, five and keep going up - something
is not quite right.

But again - our current legal system may just work in Jones's
favour as it did in Cardinal Pell's

shadowminister,

Whether my distinction between factual innocence and the presumption of innocence is true in the “purest” sense (whatever that means) is of no interest to me. I’m concerned with what is true in the legal sense, and the claim that “Pell was found innocent by all 7 high court Judges” is a statement concerning a legal procedure.

More to the point, the distinction between factual innocence and the presumption of innocence is never "pure conjecture" nor is it comparable to Schrödinger's thought experiment. Factual innocence refers to the actual state of not having committed a crime, while the presumption of innocence is a legal principle where an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. These are distinct concepts and are foundational in law.

The High Court's use of the term "innocent" in relation to Pell must be understood in its legal context. The legal system often uses "innocent" to mean "not guilty" within the confines of a trial. This does not equate to a factual declaration of innocence; it means the prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof required for a conviction.

Your assertion that in criminal trials, the terms "not guilty" and "innocent" are used interchangeably is a misunderstanding. Legally, a verdict of "not guilty" does not affirmatively establish innocence; it merely signifies that the prosecution did not prove its case to the requisite legal standard.

Finally, the suggestion that distinguishing between factual innocence and legal innocence (presumption of innocence) is merely "semantic trivia" used to support a partisan view is a misrepresentation. This distinction is crucial in understanding the legal system and ensuring fair trials. It is not a partisan issue but a legal one. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of justice, ensuring that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that individuals are not treated as guilty without proper evidence and legal process.