Oh sure, Four Corners, the Bastian of balanced, un-biased reporting.
Here is an example of 'head in the sand', reasoning.
What is wrong with you people, you follow the piper who best plays YOUR tune.
Is that how it works?
I am curious as to what actual physical violence was unleashed on this kid, that it took so long for him to report it.
Come on, I might go overboard in my attempt to bring the discussion back into focus, but I do absolutely not condone the destruction of an old man some many decades later, about NOTHING.
I am disgusted at this new revelation using the word 'historic'.
Why is it so many things have a 'use by date', such as the statute of limitations, but no when it is convenient for some one to gain from some 'historic' event, it's suddenly OK to dredge all this filth out of the swamp, for no good reason.
All these people like Crosby, Rolf Harris and so on, what was there to gain by jailing them, so many years after the 'alleged' events.
And yes in particular those of you who never grew up and are quick to judge and comment on such matters, you have your skeletons too so stop acting so pious and virtuous it's not working, those of us who have been exposed to these things know about them, not you.
So if you don't mind because of your ignorance on this topic, you would do yourself a favour and refrain from commenting or giving an opinion.
I read all the new topics as they appear, sooner or later, and you don't see me sticking my nose in talking as if an authority on all or any topic, as you do.
As someone who has experienced and seen much of the world as I have, I can safely say I take precedence on commenting over you do-gooders, because of your lackings.
I can say being a man, based on the evidence I find it hard to believe the accusations, not saying there is not some truth in them.

Paul,

"... has gone from being an allegation to a proven fact in a properly constituted court of law"

Subject to appeal, and one cannot see how the appeal will not be upheld, going on the "evidence" so far presented to the public.

Steely, keep up lad.
My reference to getting his rocks off was purely anecdotal, you are welcome to make of what you will.
The other pho-par was your integration of two separate accounts, ie; the reference to 'beaming smiles', refer to the result of a young boy having been 'taken advantage of' by a nun, or any older woman for that matter.
Again, if you live in fairy land or with your head in the sand or are un-aware of the 'real world' that surrounds you, you will not be aware of these facts. And if this is so, why are you people commenting on them?
Judging by your flawed emotional and intellectual states, you have shown again and again a lack of knowledge about the real world, or at least the world you interact with out side of your homes and minds.
You call what these people have done, 'disgusting'.
I call what the system has done to the accused, 'disgusting'.
This word 'historic', is just another fabrication by those who do not have a hold on reality and have influenced those who seek to benefit from these unrealistic demands.
So much for a 'fair go' and reason and common sense.
Again Aussies prove to be well below par in the maturity stakes.
Tell you what, keep voting for the queers and the abo's and let's see how well we're doing in another 40 or 50 years time.
Morons one and all, at least I know who and what I'm talking about.

TERMAGANT, Love it!
Never heard the word before, so grateful to those who brought it to our attention and repeated it thereafter.
I can't believe how accurately it describes certain people.
Thank you for enlightening us all with such a well suited word.
Carry on.

One question I had was about the first trial which delivered a mistrial because an 11 to 1 or better verdict could not be reached.

Various right wing commentators claim it was 10 to 2 for an acquittal. Others have said it was a 6 – 6 split. However I'm not sure how they would have known unless one of the jury members broke the law and revealed it.

In fact even the judge did not know the tally and warned them “Whatever took place in that jury room must stay there.”

Obviously there were tensions as at least 5 of the jurors were in tears when their verdict was delivered. However I would be extremely hesitant to trust anyone claiming to know the first jury's tally.

Among the jurors for the second trial was a church pastor who given the verdict was unanimous also believed Pell was guilty. That is good enough for me even if an appeal court decides against the verdict on the grounds on unreasonableness.

Dear ALTRAV,

Since you have not denied membership of AMBLA then I will take it as a given.

Foxy, SR, et al,

There are two aspects of this trial, there is the crime itself, and then there is the outcome of the trial based on the evidence.

As an atheist from a protestant background I have no love for the Catholic Church or Pell especially given his involvement in protecting the Church from the consequences of the abuse of children, and I believe that if he committed the crimes, then he richly deserves to die in jail. However, the other aspect is whether the verdict is justified based on the evidence.

Given that the evidence appears to be based entirely on the testimony of a single individual with no other witnesses, and the general rule that one person's word is not consider sufficient for a criminal conviction, the lack of any corroborating evidence of any kind in this case would appear to indicate a significant risk of the judgement being overturned.

That the judge excluded evidence from the defence is another weakness.

Another danger is that if the verdict is overturned, Pell can sue the state for wrongful imprisonment, and given his position he will get $ms.