Dear Shadow Minister,

Have you by any chance read the powerful open letter written
to Andrew Bolt by Ballarat victim's wife. She explains
things much better than I ever could. Try reading it for
yourself if you can. I've hit a paywall when I tried accessing
it for a second time. She argues the case and answers all
the arguments being made - point by point. It's really worth
a read:

http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5934280/ballarat-victims-wife-pens-powerful-letter-to-andrew-bolt/?cs=13390

Dear Steele and Paul,

The following link gives us another insight into
what victims and their families go through:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/you-no-longer-rule-our-world-the-message-from-pell-accuser-s-sister-to-powerful-cardinal-supporters-20190301-p51121.html

Foxy,

All forced sexual conduct leaves life long scars and suffering, however, the repulsiveness of a crime does not abrogate from the simple fact that there needs to be sufficient proof to convict.

One only has to refer to a recent case where a woman made a complaint to the police about being raped many years before, and because of the lack of witnesses or corroborating evidence, the case was not even taken to court on the basis of an inability to convict.

Your lack of sympathy for the victim here would appear to be based more on the accused being Bill Shorten, rather than George Pell.

In Quadrant Online today, Peter Smith (referring to the Pell case) suggests that “there is a sad lack of understanding among some of the system of justice based on English Common Law”. He is, of course, talking about ‘reasonable doubt’.

If a person accuses another of an offence years ago, there are three scenarios: the accusation is true; the accuser is a liar and it never happened, or the accuser firmly believes that the offence did happen, but it really didn't.

An independent observer (or juror) would have “no way of discerning the truth beyond reasonable doubt”.

Without corroborating evidence, with reasonable doubt, there can be no conviction. It's really quite simple. Unfortunately, some of the public, the media and those unfortunate enough to have been forced into jury duty are also 'simple’.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You know that I don't even like Mr
Shorten - and would definitely not make any excuses
for him - ever. The claim as I recall was thoroughly and
rigourously investigated by police, as was entirely
proper, and Mr Shorten co-operated fully. Mr Shorten
answered all the questions asked of him. He left the
police to do their job. With the end result being
that - The office of Public Prosecutions
dropped all charges. Mr Shorten was never put on trial.

Cardinal Pell on the other hand was put on trial
- where a jury found the Cardinal
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The jury 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 that they were not to make Cardinal
Pell a scapegoat for the Catholic Church and its failures
to children. The jury made their decision. - They found the
Cardinal - Guilty.

The case rests for the time being until the Appeal.
Cardinal Pell is now a convicted pedophile. What matters
is what will happen next. Neither your opinion, nor
mine matters very much in the general scheme of things.
We shall have to wait and see what the final results
will be.

Dear Ttbn,

«the system of justice based on English Common Law»

Is justice a system? Is justice man-made?

If Justice is a real thing, be it natural or divine, then why can't humans simply accept their limitations and inability to create it? Why not just leave it to be resolved by nature or by God as the case may be?

We live in a violent, blood-thirsty society, for which seeing others suffer is a form of entertainment.

In the past, in Rome, this was openly acknowledged as people flocked to the stadium to watch gladiators killing each other and being killed by animals. They were 'simple' then, primitive if you like, so they did not feel ashamed or uncomfortable about their sadism and lacked the English veneer described as "Justice" that now sort-of-covers people's raw cruelty.

Incarceration in prisons is a particularly cruel thing to inflict on others. While the physical pain is usually less than in "traditional" tortures, the emotional, mental and spiritual anguish is much greater and stretches on for years (rather than usually only minutes). Still our society not only favours it and enjoys watching the court-dramas on its screens, but is even happy to pay for it (quite dearly in terms of budget).

People should at least own their urges and be honest about them rather than use such pretexts as "retribution". Attempting to punish an offender does no good whatsoever for their victims.

Just because you are English does not mean that you are better than other traditions that are openly violent, such as the Roman, Chinese, Japanese, the Incas and recently the Islamic-State.

«those unfortunate enough to have been forced into jury duty»

Indeed, yet another form of barbaric incarceration, this time against completely innocent victims, without even this miserable excuses of revenge or evidence.