I think the appeal hearing has raised more questions than it has answered.

Why would the victim lie about being sexually abused? To me it doesn't make sense that he would lie about something like that.

Why would Pell lie about sexually abusing a young boy when he knew that God was watching him in everything he did? Lying about something like that would only demean him as well as the institution he represents. Maybe that's a question for the Vatican can answer - I'm sure they could look through their records to come up with an answer.

Why did Justice Weinberg infer that Pell was not dressed for the occasion when he committed the crime? I reckon Pell would have been able to undo his clothing to urinate into a urinal in a standing position so I assume he would have been just as capable of doing something else - if the occasion (to use Justice Weinberg's definition) arose.

Geoffrey Luck, ex-ABC employee and contributor to Quadrant, thinks that the judgement of the appeal court was constructed to "... to render the certainty of a review by the High Court, which can only find the original conviction wholly unreasonable according to the evidence".

Luck says "nothing prepared me for the shoddy, facile, simplistic argumentation of the judgement of the two majority judges – Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and President Chris Maxwell". And, that, with Ferguson's claim that she and her colleague had special superhuman powers to tell that a witness was not a liar, should give the High Court a quick start to overturning the shoddy, shameful original judgement and even shoddier and more shameful appeal judgement. It does, of course, depend on High Court judges being of higher calibre than the buffoons of the Victorian courts. But, there is hope!

Luck concludes that, "Passing the buck has ensured that a higher court will have to decide George Pell’s fate", which he believes is not such a bad thing, given the importance of 'reasonable doubt' in our justice system.

Paul writes of my post..” Now its a conspiracy of the far left Commie judiciary.”

Well I never mentioned a conspiracy or anything like it.
I never mentioned the far left or anything like it.
I never mentioned the ‘commies’ or anything like it.
I never mentioned the judiciary or anything like it.

But apart from that Paul’s spot on. (that’s sarcasm for those slow on the uptake).
But Paul and a few others are really only making my point when they raise things like Risdale and gays’ and aboriginals and all the other supposed conservative crimes. They implicitly agree that this wasn’t about one unprovable and unproven crime but about punishment for all the supposed crimes of the right and the church. Pell was essentially found guilty of leading a objectionable organisation. It was vengeance wrought by those who’ve been after the church and Christianity in general.

Its interesting to ponder how two juries can see the same evidence but reach wildly different outcomes. (10-2 for acquittal, 12-0 for gaol). What happened between the two trials? I’d offer two possibilities. (1) an unrelenting media scapegoating of Pell such that it would have been impossible to find an unbiased jury – imagine 12 Pauls standing judgement. (2) plenty of time to ‘educate’ the only witness for the prosecution such that he became more believable.

Foxy asserts (or just hopes) that “They [the appeals court] were a third jury - and the majority found
for the complainant against the Cardinal.” Both those statements are factually incorrect as in not even close to true. Foxy should read or try to understand what the appeals court was doing. They found the jury verdict was not unreasonable, not that it was correct. Those are two very different things

Paul,

Given the number of men who have been found to be paedophiles, how can the State Governments allow male teachers to be in charge of children?

We know, of course, that all male teachers are not a menace to children; how do you know that all priests are?

Would a paedophile do anything to a child in a school playground?

What about the teachers on playground duty, do you think that they would turn a blind eye?

What's your take on prosecuting the priest witnesses for Pell who perjured themselves?

I'm not sure whether Cardinal Pell is innocent or guilty? What I do know and appreciate, the Law as it stands is (occasionally), an ass! Though my old detective's nose tells me there's a lot more to this matter, then we'll ever know.

The Royal Commission never even touched the real issues of this awful crime against children. Moreover, the police usually know much more about a crime, than can be proven in a Court of Law? Knowing & proving are two entirely different things. The Scottish version of criminal jurisprudence would suit us remarkably well I would've thought, avoiding altogether 'double jeopardy'

Guilty; Not Guilty; & Not Proven - thus allowing police the opportunity of re-visiting a crime if and when, more evidence comes to light.

Dear o sung wu,

A complaint was brought against Pell, who is a member of the elite in society, and the people determined that he was guilty. Now it is being taken out of the hands of the people and placed into the hands of the elite for a decision void of public participation. So hasn't this become a dispute between the two broad classes of society. I think the High Court will acquit Pell. He's a liability but a liability that has to be kept out of the public domain in order to protect the power and privilege of an upper class.