Good girl.

1. This shows that, despite putting these things in quotes, you liberally altered the actual words, phrases and intent of the article.

2. These people are shown by the rest of the article to be hopelessly biased and unqualified to be making judgements.

No wonder you wanted to hide the link.

Meanwhile I'll report the facts I showed last year...

http://lsj.com.au/articles/understanding-the-high-courts-acquittal-of-cardinal-george-pell/

eg "Even assuming that the jury assessed A’s evidence as ‘thoroughly credible and reliable’, the ‘compounding improbabilities’ caused by the unchallenged evidence required the jury, acting rationally, to have a doubt about Pell’s guilt (at [119]). Put another way, notwithstanding that the jury found A to be credible and reliable, the evidence as a whole was ‘not capable of excluding a reasonable doubt’ as to Pell’s guilt (at [58]). Echoing the formulation used by Deane J and later Mason CJ in years past, the Court referred at three points in the judgment to the ‘significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted’ (at [9], [119], [127])."

Read the full paper to see what those 'compounding improbabilities' were.

mhaze,

No. You are wrong.

It's been explained to you
many time, by myself and others.
Repaating things will not make them
factual. As I've told you - stop digging. The
hole is getting deeper. All we're seeing is more dirt.

Besides the man is dead. Unfortunately many of his
victims are still paying the price of his actions.
They can't and should not be defended.

Dear Critic,

«The settlers raise their kids with a mind to kill the Palestinians, don't fool yourself into thinking they don't.
They're as equally hateful and radical at heart as anything on the other side.»

Yes, there are those.

But let us make a distinction:
Most Israelis are not settlers.
Most Israelis hate them.

And even among the Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about half are opportunistic - they came there because land is cheap, because they received interest-free mortgages from government, because they can live in a large free-standing villa rather than crammed in small high-rise apartments, and they will more-than-gladly return home to Israel-proper if offered an appropriate financial compensation.

Now we are talking about the other half, the hard core of the settlers, then yes, they are dangerous Nazis of extreme Jewish-Messianic expectations. Most of them are immigrants who brought their craziness from America.

«They didn't conduct raids on the surrounding people, raping, murdering, mutilating, taking hostages, then returning to their homes to celebrate their atrocities and be lauded for them.»

No they never raped. Their early education strongly repels them with contempt from non-Jewish women, they cannot even think of touching them.
They do not mutilate either, nor interested in keeping hostages: that is not part of their culture.

But they do raid, beat, wound and kill, they do burn homes, cars and orchards, they do damage property and they do steal land, and they do celebrate it.

Now the hard bit is, that Israel has no means to stop them, not even if it had the best government in the world (now of course it has the worst). They are simply too strong for the IDF, they threaten military officers to hurt their families if they dare try to stop or remove them. The IDF may not be afraid of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, but is terrified of them because of what they can do to the IDF officers' children.

Israel needs extensive international help just to physically remove the hard-core settlers and send them back to America (or directly to hell).

mhaze,

I'll match your link with the following:

http://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156

Case closed.

Oh dear Foxy. Despite what the learned authors of this article say, it is not a technicality to say that the jury couldn't have found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it is a damning indictment of three judges in Victoria that they allowed matters to get this far that they had to be overturned by a unanimous High Court rather than settled at first or second instance.

Hi Graham,

With all due respect. We shall have to agree to disagree
on this issue. I'm not going to argue as sexual abuse
cases are different and the jury and judges who found
the Cardinal guilty did so having weighed everything
presented. The High
Court decision I believe was influenced by the power of
the Church.