Foxy,

"No matter what happens -
Cardinal Pell's reputation has been
thrashed. He will go down in history
as a convicted [homosexual] pedophile [paedophile]."

Fixed it for you.

So, now it's the number of complainants that counts. The witch-hunters of OLO have passed judgement; the main stream media has passed judgement; now 'more than one' person, again without evidence, has claimed to be a victim of George Pell. The witch hunter in chief declares that: " I stand by our jury and judicial system despite personal insults that continue against me".

According to Foxy the rest of us shouldn't comment because we weren't in the court at the time of the verdict, but she, who was also not in the court (just like the rest of us) can comment and declare Pell guilty. Now, with claims from people she doesn't know from a bar of soap (on ABC) she is even more convinced of the man's guilt.

How can anyone that smugly arrogant not expect the odd 'personal insult'. Of course, as someone " talking out of a garbage bin", I probably shouldn't be questioning her Ladyship. And, of course, there is no need for Pell's barrister to appeal.

Foxy's vehemence conjures up images of women sitting around the guillotine, knitting and hissing, in revolutionary Paris.

Dear Is Mise,

Homosexual? How on earth do you know? It is all about access and and power unless there were an equal number choir girls for Pell to catch, to block their escape and shove their faces into his crotch it is pretty hard to make any assumptions. Remember this was 'vanilla sex'.

Foxy,

"The case against Pell as shown on "Four Corners,"
last night was strong. It wasn't only just one
complainant's word"

Perhaps you would like to detail what other evidence there was in the case against Pell that was actually admissible in court?

ttbn, I must admit, if what I witnessed on 60 minutes was touted as being 'compelling' and promoted as making the case against Pell, I was left with more questions than answers.
I was expecting an 'in depth' assessment of the allegations, with interviews of actual irrefutable evidence or some new material witness or something which left no doubts as to his guilt.
Now I and others can only speculate, and even accuse him of being guilty of these allegations, BUT, I did not see or hear ANYTHING on 60 minutes that made the prosecutions case.
All I saw and heard was very emotional interviews with people which amounted to here-say and not actual irrefutable evidence.
I came away feeling that 60 minutes had pieced together an emotional presentation for the sake of ratings by appealing to people's emotions and not their minds.
Interviewing people who thought this or thought that, like the guy who walked in on Pell talking to some kids, in the shower room.
They were naked with Pell having only his towel over his shoulder. Now I can see how he can draw assumptions as to what may have been going on, but it tells us more about HIS state of mind than Pells.
If that's all it takes to convict someone in this country, then heaven help us all.
Next we'll be charged with rape by even talking to a woman.
I don't deny the 'information' NOT evidence, so far is telling a story.
BUT, if the judicial process we have witnessed is anything to go by, then as far as I am concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that our wonderful judicial system, that some of you love so much, has stuffed up again.
As punishment to all those who believe, naively in our system of law and it's processes, I hope he gets off, for whatever reason, a technicality, lack of actual and material proof, who cares, I find it would be a perfect slap in the face for those who speak as though they are an authority on EVERYTHING.

Foxy Quote "He will go down in history as a convicted pedophile."

If the appeal is successful and you call him that enjoy your day in court for defamation.

Also if he is guilty on the uncorroborated evidence of one person your mate Shorten should therefore watch his back. Only difference is Shorten has the Victoria police money can buy or politically appoint.
The female had more than one but police could not find them.

Kathy Sherriff accuses Bill Shorten of raping her after a young Labor Party function. When police presented their brief of evidence to the Office of Public Prosecution, the OPP determined there was "no reasonable prospect of conviction" against Shorten. In its view the matter boiled down to her word against his.

The Pell guilty verdict proves that juries are capable of convicting on the word of one complainant.

The OPP's position that "there was no reasonable prospect of conviction" against Shorten must now be reviewed