SR,
You now have had two attempts to show the cases where allegations alone, like in the Pell case, were used to convict a person of child sexual abuse. The first was Ridsdale and you did not disclose he pleaded guilty. The second was Aithinson in the ACT where I pointed out that there was material evidence presented and he also had a record of child sex convictions, plus he raped the victim many times over a long period. So you have failed both times.

There may be cases where only word on word evidence was used but I have yet to see one. The Pell case is the only one I know of.

Maybe it is a good thing that such a high profile person is convicted as we now might get the changes needed to avoid further convictions, based only on accusations. This could occur whether Pell's appeal is successful or not. Allegations must be proven, the present situation cannot be allowed to continue.

Foxy,

Way back from Sanskrit and other Indian origins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Sanskrit_origin

On the lighter side and pertaining (tenuously) to the current subject,
I once was involved, on the perimeter, of a hilarious sexual assault.

The woman in front of me at the Woolworths checkout suddenly spun to face me and with a look of fury on her face, seeing that both my hands were occupied with groceries, she looked down and there was the offender, my second son, all of three years old, he had put his hand up her undergarment.
"I put my hand in de warm." he said.

Smiles all round.

I must add that he has never been allowed to forget the incident, even though he doesn't remember it.

Dear HenryL,

You write;

“You now have had two attempts to show the cases where allegations alone, like in the Pell case, were used to convict a person of child sexual abuse. The first was Ridsdale and you did not disclose he pleaded guilty. The second was Aithinson in the ACT where I pointed out that there was material evidence presented and he also had a record of child sex convictions, plus he raped the victim many times over a long period. So you have failed both times.”

Firstly I will admit to not seeing your reply to me but we can deal with it now.

What follows with your reaction to the Ridsdale case that in your opinion if he had kept his mouth shut then a conviction was unlikely. Perhaps this was why Pell refused to take the stand. This would apply to all cases where the abuser was able to intimidate the victim into not revealing the crime until many years later when all physical evidence had gone.

In the case of Aithinson you may be talking about the letters between the church and the mother. However they were still in a very real sense hearsay and would likely not have resulted in a conviction on their own especially as the mother had died. Remember Aithinson's defence was that he is a homosexual and thus would not have committed rape on a girl.

Cont...

Cont...

The Guardian addressed “word on word” cases saying;

“It used to be that the law could not give weight to a single complainant’s evidence unless there was also a witnesses who said the victim told them about the abuse at the time, or unless there was evidence showing the victim was distressed immediately after the attack. This may be why Richter made so much of the fact that the victim did not speak out until he was an adult.”

“But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to victims, so evidence requirements have changed. There is overwhelming evidence that shows many victims do not speak about their abuse until decades later. The vast majority of sexual assault cases now come down to the complainant’s word. To ensure trials are still fair, legislation now requires the judge to give jurors specific directions to balance any unfairness against the defence or complainant when it comes to word on word cases.”

So the “vast majority of sexual assault cases now come down to the complainant’s word.” yet you are claiming Pell's is the first? Really? http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/340

Get your hand off it my friend.

That's interesting, so if someone can show that they were unaware that their actions were illegal, in this case, sexual assault, it is OK and even more so if it involves a child.
That's good to know.
I am reminded then of the gypsy children in Europe who are groomed or trained to do acts of deception and purloin money/wallets from unsuspecting tourists.
So you can see the funny side of your three year old son's story, yet my harmless banter of previous comments, sends you into a state of a raging lunatic.
And you dare criticise me.
Children or not, any professional will tell you, some things begin from a very young age, so by 'laughing it off', you have set a very bad precedent.
I can see how women mis-trust men, that child appears to have been in your care.
I can hear the cries of condemnation already at your total disregard for this woman.
You said nothing about chastising or correcting your son for that, albeit, act of indiscretion towards the woman, who upon seeing it was a three year old, did the only thing left open to her, which was not what she was about to do and that was to abuse you in public.
I can only imagine she was left very distraught but had the courage to put on a brave face and laugh it off.
I can tell you of most 'females', who would have taken great pleasure in yelling and screaming at you, on the spot, for not controlling your child.
You are lucky that the woman you encountered was so forgiving and did not want to be aggressive and put you in your place, in front of your child.
So be grateful for that.
I hope you later sat him down and explained to him that what he did was wrong and not to do it again, because honestly, a three year old see's you both laughing at what he did, what do think he went away thinking.
You just taught him a 'bad' thing.