Foxy,

and that's all that they are, allegations.

Is Mise,
You are right, Foxy appears to have made her mind up and condemned Pell well prior to this trial as she has referred to previous allegations and appears to think they should have some bearing on the outcome here. Well they do not and nor should they.

I keep coming back to the accuser's statement which has not been released. Does it contain information that makes Pell guilty? Louise Milligan indicated it makes the accuser believable. What does it contain that it has to be kept secret? The jury took 2 1/2 days to decide on the verdict so it has to be contentious.

Then at the first trial the jury could not agree on whatever it was

Foxy,

"Here's a link that lists some of the allegations about
Cardinal Pell's behaviour that have followed him for years"

Yes Foxy, you are making my case for me. Pell wasn't found guilty because the evidence was compelling, he was found guilty because a hostile media doing the work of a hostile anti-Christian lobby convinced enough people that there must be a fire where there's smoke. Lots of allegations that couldn't be proved or even processed by a bias police force convinced enough people that he was guilty of something. You seem to be confirming that.

"It is very rare that ab Appeal Court
overrules that of a jury decision"

But not rare enough for your liking I'd wager...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/former-catholic-archbishop-philip-wilson-wins-appeal-has-conviction-overturned-20181206-p50knr.html

mhaze,

Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson's case is
different from that of Cardinal Pell in so
many ways. Archbishop was not convicted as a
pedophile. He was accused for concealing child
sex abuse done by another priest. And this charge
was hard to prove. The offending priest had been
charged with other child sex abuse crimes and he was
convicted before dying in jail.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-07/philip-wilson-sex-abuse-conviction-overturned/10595040

cont'd ...

Cardinal Pell was found guilty because a jury
of 12 having listened to the very strong
directions by the chief judge, having listened to
the 14 witnesses called by prosecutors, having
heard one first hand witness who gave evidence -
which is apparently the procedure followed in
"word-on-word"sexual
abuse trials, having had all the improbabilities
pointed out to them, and having inspected the
Cardinal's robes, unanimously convicted the
Cardinal. The evidence that was presented to them
they found to be compelling to come to this
conclusion.

What the results of the Cardinal's Appeal will be
neither you nor I have any way of knowing. So wagering
on this issue would be a waste of both our time.

Hey, fellas. There is no point in arguing with a termagant.