Altrav,

Grow up.

Foxy,
This thread started at the end of February. It was then, after reading a list of evidence at Pell's trial, that I learned that there was only the accuser as witness for the prosecution and deduced that Pell was convicted on accusations alone. I asked out loud "How could this be so" as the basis of our legal system is supposedly guilt has to be proven. Word on word evidence used to mean acquittal.

No one has ever stated that the rules of evidence had changed from'the prosecution must prove guilt' to 'if accused, one must prove his innocence'. The courts no longer need proof of guilt, allegations without confirmation will do. This was confirmed to me by the Guardian article. Even now nine days later, in link I posted, a professor of Law is saying that the prosecution has to prove guilt and Pell has no need to speak for himself. That is Bull. It is perfectly obvious that he was given wrong advice, he had to prove his innocence. He is a capable speaker and can speak for himself.

What I cannot understand is that all the states, certainly Victoria, has gone from 'innocent til proven guilty' to 'Guilty unless you can prove otherwise'. The unintended consequences of this dramatic change are tremendous and against everything we have stood for, for hundreds of years. Magna Carta comes to mind. Were these changes implemented 1 year ago, 5 years ago or 50 years ago? No one seems to know.

I have been advocating prosecutions for FGM for over 10 years and the police and prosecutors have said it is too hard to get a conviction. Well the Pell case shows that all they need to do is make an accusation, it is sex abuse of children, then decide on penalty.

Issy, 'GROW UP, GROW UP', that's the best you can do, that's all you've got?
Mate, reckon I'd get a better rebuttal from your three year old.
Now do you see that i'm right again?
I engage in a mature informed discussion, with suggestions and speculations, and what do you do?
You go and prove the point that some of you are not fit for intrigue and controversy.
All you and your running mates are good for is stating the obvious, quoting other people, and telling each other how wonderful you all are.
You never actually take in what others write if it does not help your stance or opinion.
You guys are typically Aussy, you have NO idea of what's going on around you, and if you do, you choose to ignore it as it deosn't suite you're idea of the world as you think it should be, instead of what it is.
You guys remind me of the definition of a madman;
'repeating exactly the same thing over and over, expecting a different result'.
Just thought I'd throw that in as it appears there is an expectation that labour will win the next election.
The real demonstration of seriously flawed people, is when you get dreamers who believe that govt ministers, police, the justice system and other public services, are honest and have the public interests as their sole purpose.
Unfortunately the opposite is the case, but it's easier to ignore this than to do something about it.
And so it is that you and your mates need to 'grow up', not me

ALTRAV,

Throw up.

HenryL.,

I don't understand what your problem is regarding
Cardinal Pell's case. You don't seem to understand
that according to the current law - it was up
to the prosecution to prove their case - which they
apparently did as the jury found Pell guilty. The
presumption of innocence had not changed. The verdict
was arrived at by what they heard from both sides.

For me this discussion has now well and truly run its
course.

See you on the next one.

See you on the next one.

Foxy,
I don't wish to continue any discussion.

For me it is simple. Word on word used to mean acquittal, it obviously no longer does. Now testimony with nothing more than accusations can convict someone. No support evidence required.

It is not good enough for a court to say 'we won't release all what the accuser had to say but we believe him over the accused'. The public needs to be shown why.