Paul,

"...but until real action is taken by the Church hierarchy they are nothing but words without meaning."

What do you suggest?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/vatican-is-in-shame-and-sorrow-over-abuses-in-pennsylvania
The saddest thing about this link?it could be one of tens maybe hundreds that could be posted

Dear Steele,

We still don't really know how the vote was split
in the first jury. Quadrant magazine said it
was 10-2 for acquittal. But how do they know they
were not there. How does anyone know what the split was?
The complainant's testimony which convinced 12 jurors
who heard it wasn't convincing for 2 (or was it 10) who
heard it. This would be more interesting if we knew exactly
how the jury was split - but we don't. Can Quadrant mag.
be trusted? How do they know? Where did they get their
information from - what reputable site? All we do know for
certain is that it was a "hung" jury in the first trial.
And Is Mise is totally reliant on Quadrant.

Foxy,

Where did you get the figure from?

10/2 is simply an unsubstantiated figure thrown about by the paedophile apologists to try and give credence to some misconceived notion of Pell being innocent. The first trial is irrelevant, what matters is the second trial which found Pell guilty as charged. That's the trial that put the paedophile behind bars!

BTW Issy, in your 1945 episode why was it not reported to police? In 1945 any homosexual act was a criminal offence, and those adults failing to report such criminal matters were also libel to criminal prosecution. Even then the Catholic Church was a criminal organisation.

Dear Is Mise;

You wrote;

"Now I'll say it again, people knew that the jury vote was 10/2 because it was publicised, it was not a secret."

Not even the judge knew and it would have been a crime for any of the jurors to reveal the actual split, so who publicised it, and where did they get their information from, and how on earth could you possibly vouch for its accuracy?