Issy, how about YOU give reliable evidence for YOUR claim that the first jury was split 10-2, which so happens to be the closes result to a not guilty, without not actually being so. I think like all the rest of the paedophile apologists you are using this lie to give weight to your argument.

Belly,
I would say the same no matter who the defendant was. View is based on what little evidence put forward by the prosecution, or at least known to us. If nothing further and dramatic comes out at the appeal, Pell will walk. Poor choice of case by those wanting to hang Pell.

I don't know why people have their kickers in a knot now about homosexuals and kids as it has been that way for centuries in churches. Just recently we voted to put same sex marriage on the same level as normal marriage and the whole thing was about making anal intercourse and anal licking normal in the public sense. It is not normal practice for me and an affront to my marriage, which I held in high esteem.

Actually, the first mention (as far as I can find) was,

"James Franklin, the author of the Quadrant article, says of the 'evidence’ against Pell, there is “little of it”; and it “It consists just in the complainant’s account”. Franklin also points out that in the first trial, the jury voted 10-2 for an ACQUITTAL."

Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:35:36 PM

Henry L voted for same sex thing in fact helped the first women work with men on roads same sex at that
Would, let me be honest, not actively seek out their company in a social way
But putting them in the same box as Pell
face as said even past Popes covered this up, may be offenders, guilty as charged
Let us see if powerful mates and influence can free Pell

Issy, why should James Franklin be considered any more believable than you?
Your apologist argument is supported by this unsubstantiated erroneous claim. Please provide the original source of your assertion. I believe you are using this lie to propagate your line, and have no evidence for it.

BTW you have not named the criminals involved in the sexual assault of you in 1945. As I pointed out, in that year any homosexual act was a criminal offence, and failing to report that to police was also a criminal offence. Just shows what a criminal organisation the Catholic Church is.

Paul,

He shouldn't and are you now joining those of us who think that paedophilic acts against male children are carried out by homosexuals?