Paul,

"Issy, I am interested in what was "appropriate action" in 1945?"

Go back and read my posts.

What is it issy, some cryptic answer, I can't be bothered. I don't read every post anyway.

Present two groups of people with essentially the same evidence. One group decides unanimously that the evidence proves the guilt of the accused. The other group decides 10-2 the exact opposite.

It’s difficult to see how this shows other than that the evidence wasn’t comPELLing. In the end the case resolved to a popularity contest between two people telling two very different stories neither of which were, nor could be, supported by any other evidence.

Pell lost that popularity contest. It seems clear that he was seen as a proxy for the Catholic Church which has become, for a variety of reasons, severely discredited within society and particularly with certain groups within society.

That a man can have his liberty withdrawn based solely on the accusations of another who happens to be or claims to be a member of a more favoured group is highly problematic. Our civilisation has been based on presumption of innocence and our judicial system, developed over the past millennium, was designed to ensure that the presumption of innocence was protected.

Gaoling someone because they are a member or a leader of a disfavoured group is fraught with ill-omens for the society. That the decision may be overturned on appeal is cold-comfort. What has happened to Pell forebodes ill-winds for justice in this society into the future.

ttbn,

You were the one who made the statement that
it was " my large ego" that was a bother for
me mingling online or in real life. I merely
responded that I've never had that problem.
That in my experience people warm to me.

You again continued with the insult - "Now
there is a MASSIVE ego." No, that has nothing
to do with ego - it's what I have experienced.

It seems that it's you who has a MASSIVE problem
not me. I get the fact that you don't like me -
and I'm fine with that. But I won't stay silent
when you rant on and say things that simply are not true.
I would appreciate your keeping your word
and ignoring me in the future.
That would be great!
I shall try to do the same with you - unless you again
overstep the line. Stick with kindred spirits on this
forum - if you can find any.

mhaze,

Apparently the jury found that the evidence
compelling. According to The Guardian newspaper
jurors were given very strong directions
by the chief judge about factors to consider. Jurors
were told it was not enough to believe the complainant,
or to think that Cardinal Pell committed the abuse.

Jurors were told they had to believe the abusing
happened beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise it was not
safe to convict and they must find Cardinal Pell not guilty.

They were also told repeatedly and on multiple days they
were not to make Cardinal Pell a scapegoat for the
Catholic Church and its failures to children.

They were warned almost daily against doing their own research
into Cardinal Pell or talking about the case, and were told
they could go to jail if they did so.

These were not points made in passing. They were drilled into
jurors by the chief judge.

As for being convicted on the evidence of one person and
whether or not this is fair? The Guardian explains that there
were 14 witnesses called by prosecutors. But, there was only
one first hand witness who gave evidence - the complainant.
A large part of the prosecution's case necessarily hinged on
his testimony. It's explained that this is not at all
unusual in sexual abuse trials which are known as "word -on-
word" cases.

It's explained that it used to be that the law could not give
weight to a single complainant's evidence unless there was
also a witness who said the victim told them about the
abuse at the time, or unless there was evidence showing the
victim was distressed immediately after the attack. This may
be according to The Guardian why Cardinal Pell's lawyer
Richter made so much of the fact that the victim did not
speak out until he was an adult.

But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful
prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to
victims - so evidence requirements have now changed.
There is overwhelming evidence that shows many victims do not
speak about their abuse until decades later.

cont'd ...

Paul,

"What is it issy, some cryptic answer, I can't be bothered. I don't read every post anyway"

and I can't be bothered repeating myself for your lazy benefit.