How quick are the 'know it all' brigade to comment and accuse?
This whole debacle about Pell has been a Yes, No game from the start.
All you 'know it all' types, have NO IDEA as to the truth, not the facts, surrounding this case.
In case you need a 'real life' catch up lesson, truth and facts are two different words, with two different meanings.
DUH!
By speaking your straw man minds you've only given us a further insight into your do goody mindsets.
As for the 'victim', what a joke the guy's a flake, actually expecting to get sympathy for NOTHING.
As I have already said, I don't care about little pansy precious diddums like this guy.
Did he get punched, physically abused, broken bones, anything?
No what a gutless wimp, you do gooders can go and you know what, see what you have facilitated.
This kind of disease is directly down to you lot and your pansy arse push to turn men into neuters.
Well here's one of them.
The first trial was clear that there was no case to answer to, but NO you pathetic lot decided that that wasn't fair because a pansy did not get his way.
Now we don't know the truth about all this, but after reading about this wimpy little snivelling spoilt brat with a petulant and must get his way at all costs attitude, I hope it was all true and Pell gets off.
Those of you promoting this goody two shoes mantra, don't want to be told that this sort of thing is what you end up with when you try to stop men from being men, even if they act like arseholes, that is the way certain people are wired, so stop trying to play God, instead preach that the boys should grow up strong and fight back if the situation calls for it, and not turn the other cheek and get the bejesus kicked out of them.
Oh and Steely, the reason I did not join AMBLA is because I saw your name of the membership list.

Hi Foxy and Steele,

'Four Corner' was well worth the watch tonight.

//to stop men from being men, even if they act like arseholes//

This bloke has to be the biggest imbecile posting on this forum, bar none. He's got no idea about anything, but claims to be the fountain of knowledge, what a twit!

Philip S.,

Nothing is to be gained here by insisting on
who's right or wrong in their opinions. We
are all entitled to our own views - whatever
they may be. However unless we were in the
Court - during the entire process
we have no way of knowing why the jury
made the decision it did. I can only imagine
that they took their duties very seriously
and that it would not have been an easy decision
to make. They found Cardinal Pell guilty of all
charges beyond reasonable doubt.

You can question that decision - that's up to you.
I trust our judicial system and I fully accept
the jury's decision. There's nothing more to
say. You're entitled to continue arguing - but
you will be arguing by yourself.

Paul you are not one to give opinions or make disparaging comments about ANYONE.
I read your comments as if a comedy of errors or a fictional novel, both you and little miss you know who, are not in a position to critique ANYONE.
If you had the slightest idea of what was going on in the real world you would implode, with you and your mates attitude towards life in general.
You and your lot are like petulant two year olds.
How many times do you guys have to be told to STAY ON TOPIC?
When you go off topic, it;s not to challenge or rebut anything I have said, but to waste everyones time bagging me.
I'll say it again, I don't care what you have to say or any of your comments about me.
If I was being attacked by intelligent, informed, mature people, I might actually read what they had to say, because I would be confident that their comments were informative and offered additional or other perspectives and information to the topic, and not this supercilious attitude we are having to endure ad nauseum from you and your mates.
You and your lot obviously have issues with 'real' people.
I suggest you look around and see the 'real' world, it's all around you.
Until then do us all a big favour and stop wasting everyones time.
By all means keep giving your valuable opinions, but direct them at your followers.

Foxy so eloquently put quote "unless we were in the Court - during the entire process we have no way of knowing why the jury made the decision it did."

** If that is the case why did you post that stupid survey result, guarantee none of the people who participated were in the court.
Then you come out with this quote "The Pellophiles have been outvoted!"
implying you were right all the time and the survey proves it.

Quote "I trust our judicial system" By that if he appeals and the decision is reversed you will come here and admit you were hasty in your judgement.

Foxy,

Again you are missing the point. WRT Shorten, the only evidence against him was the word of his victim. Whether he was guilty or not, it simply wasn't enough proof for a conviction. In the case of Pell, again decades later, there was not a single shred of corroborating evidence. No witness, no DNA, no history of similar behaviour simply the word of the victim. Apparently, for you it depends by whom one is raped before one deserves sympathy.

Whether or not Pell is guilty, the case against him is weak. That the first trial ended in a hung jury is evidence of how weak. It would not be the first time a jury's verdict is overturned.

Personally, I believe that he is most probably guilty, however, that is my opinion only.