Paul, the Chamberlains were convicted because of the jury's view of their religion. Supposedly involving child sacrifice as you believe of Abraham. I was nursed by Lindy Chamberlain for two weeks and knew of her love for her family, who visited her in the Hospital grounds while on duty. The case is not based in accusations of paedophilia but in association with a celebrant religion with many paedophile priests in the jury's mind.

Glad to see you are inside the jury's mind in these cases Josephus, I would hate to think it was all a figment of your imagination. Or maybe its just a god thing. As you were not privy to the evidence, nor to the juries deliberations how can you possibly know what you are saying has substance.

Some years ago I did jury duty, sitting for three months on a very serious case at the Downing Centre in Sydney. I like the eleven others took my responsibility most seriously. Superficially, from the one percent that was being reported in the papers, the accused did appeared to be guilty. I spent a lot of time thinking about the evidence, and trying to see if there was the slightest doubt, could the evidence by unsound, then the only verdict possible would be not guilty

Paul,

"...Just for clarity when you // with experience, came away with smiles as big as houses.// What side of the fence were you on?"

The top of a pointed pailing and probably squirming with delight!!

Dear Paul,

The Chamberlain case is a great one to bring up.
The lack of precedent at the time played heavily
on matters of law. Thankfully it has been updated
and now new evidence on the matter of attacks by
dingos have come to light. No longer are we able
to say that dingos can't take babies. It's just
that at the time Australia was not able to believe
that a wild dog could do such a thing.

Just as in - Cardinal Pell's case there are some who
can't believe that "a man of such seniority and such
faith could commit such heinous acts." "How could
a priest do this?"

So, just as it was shown that a dingo could indeed
do what was claimed it did - we'll see what the Appeals
Court decides on the Pell case. Will they uphold the
jury conviction - only time will tell.

Paul, unlike you, I don't invest too much time in frivolous speculations or biased vilification.
Ridsdale means nothing to me and so it is I have no opinion or comment on the topic, but to satisfy your petulant need for 'winning at all costs', I will say, if the guy was as bad as the evidence offered and there were enough real and material witnesses and 'victims', then what does your sick demented mind want me to say?
That he was a good guy, is that what you want to hear from me?
Well you are going to be sadly disappointed, because my answer is that with ALL this mountain of badness being dumped on him, he should firstly be examined for a possible psychological disorder and then proceed with the appropriate determination, whether it be jail or nut house.
Either way I would recommend he be removed from any contact with the public in general.
There will that satisfy your morbid attraction to 'kiddy fiddlers' and their antics.
Are you sure your not one yourself, and looking to learn ways to avoid getting caught, Hmmmmm?
As for 'what side of the fence was I on'?
Paul I was the one who 'got his rocks off', and believe me, as a neuter, you have no idea how wonderful it feels.
Especially for a boy with a demanding sexual interest.
So Paul I'm sorry you have never experienced the 'pleasure of the flesh', but a woman is the most pleasurable person a 'man' could ever experience in his life.
The incident I spoke of was a welcome experience for me as a pre pubescent.
My angst is with this country, it's moronic people and their moronic views and beliefs, it's moronic laws, and the list goes on and on, like you and Foxy at the best of times.
If someone writes up a title calling for all these facts I will gladly expound further.
Until then carry on with your ad-nauseam from the soap-box pulpit.

Dear Foxy,

As an atheist of lapsed Proddy background, I'm certainly ready to believe that unmarried priests, in positions of great prestige and power over gullible parishioners, especially children, would be very likely to commit all manner of perverted crimes against them. I wish Pell was guilty, that would pull him and his unctuousness down a peg or two. His friendship with (and shielding of) Ridsdale surely should cast doubts on his probity and integrity (has anybody raised this yet, as a sort of guilt-by-association in this recent case ? It would serve the bastard right, even if it was a bit irrelevant).

BUT, on the basis of the evidence presented that we know of, somebody's assertion with no back-up evidence, should surely give us pause that a full and fair verdict was arrived at. And in any appeal, is it possible that an appellate court might examine that aspect, and find it inadequate ? So 'not proven', therefore (in an Australian court) 'not guilty'. So Pell could walk free ?

Personally, I suspect that a pedophile of Pell's age and the various positions that he might have held over nearly sixty years, would have committed perhaps hundreds of similar offences, getting more devious, secret and vicious over that time. So perhaps the next time, many more people might have the courage to come forward, with - somehow - some corroborating evidence to back up their accusations.

Love,

Joe