Foxy,

The police never said that there was no case for Shorten to answer. I have read the statement which said that there was insufficient evidence to achieve a conviction (i.e. reasonable doubt)

Clearly, your judgement is as flawed as the Victorian judges and Jury.

post-truth mhaze,

You claim: "Standard SR there.....cherry-pick some quotes and pretend they are the whole story."

Yet offer not a singe quote of your own in rebuttal. Typical.

"Yet offer not a singe quote of your own in rebuttal. Typical."

I already posted the link to the full HC findings AND invited people to read the reasons why the jury should have found reasonable doubt. Sorry that was beyond you capabilities.

To assist, go to the section headed "(13) Compounding improbabilities re the first incident"

where you'll see a list of the improbable events that 'compound' to make the whole claimed incident spectacularly improbable.

eg"840 Mr Richter submitted that each of a large number of independently improbable, if not ‘impossible’, things would have had to have occurred within a very short timeframe (perhaps 10 minutes or so), if the complainant’s account of the first incident were true.

841 The matters relied upon by Mr Richter in support of that ‘compounding improbabilities’ submission were:...."

Its quite complex and detailed and I know that's not your thing, but give it a try.

Dear Steele,

The following link may be of interest:

http://smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/he-was-only-28-alan-jones-defends-cardinal-george-pell-on-qa-20160307-gncymh.html

Birds of a feather?

Shadow Minister,

You say that my judgement is flawed?

I trust my own judgement. You can't change people's
minds about you. People believe what they want to.
I know the truth about me and that's all that matters
to me.

Dear Steele,

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