Joe,
I have no feelings one way or another about Pell and am not religious in any manner shape or form, but I am concerned about the implications of this case.

I may be wrong but this is the first case I have seen where a person has been convicted purely on allegations alone. The complaintant gave the only evidence for the prosecution and it was verbal, there was no other evidence of any sort. I understand that laws were altered to allow convictions on allegations alone, at least in Victoria.

This sets a precedent that any man, woman or child can be convicted in Victoria of any crime on the basis of some accusations, without supporting evidence. I say again, there was no supporting evidence given at the Pell trial.

I was of the opinion that the prosecution had to prove guilt, but now the shoe is on the other foot and the accused has to prove his innocence. I think Victoria will regret the law changes which frighten me for the citizens.

This case will probably continue
to bring out various emotions in many people.
The victims and their families, the strong
believers in the infallability of Church leaders,and
those who do not have much confidence in our legal
system, and the list goes on.

The Age newspaper tells us that Cardinal George Pell
will consider his case to the High Court, after Victoria's
Court of Appeal upheld his child-sex convictions in a
majority ruling. Meaning the Cardinal will serve out his
six year prison term. The Cardinal must serve 3 years and
eight months before he is eligible for parole.

Pell's lawyers are now considering whether to continue his
legal fight. He has 28 days to seek special leave to
appeal in the High Court.

If Pell applied to the High Court it would decide whether
or not to hear the case.

In 2017-18 the High Court refused special leave for 430 cases
and granted it for only 65.

I have very little time for catholic church despite being raised in it. The decision in my mind shows that one does not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt if you belong in a despised group. A very sad day that destroys anyone with any neutrality having faith in the court system.

We were not in the Court when Pell's case was
being heard. We do not know what the evidence
was that was presented. All we have to go on is
that a jury of 12 unanimously found the man guilty.

Now Chief Justice Ferguson has said that Pell's
surviving victim was a "compelling witness,"
"Clearly not a liar," "Not a fantasist" and a
"witness of trust."

That throughout his evidence the complainant came
across as someone who was telling the truth.

The majority of two judges decided that there was nothing
about the complainant's evidence or the opportunity
evidence, which meant that the jury must have had a
doubt about the truth of the complainant's account.

The two judges ruled they did not experience a doubt.

Our Prime Minister said, "The decision of the three
Court of Appeal Judges must be respected."

Foxy,

"...believers in the infallability* of Church leaders..."

Who thinks that Church leaders are infallible?

*You do need a bit of help sometimes.[infallibility]

Foxy,
I take it that you are now happy that Victorians can now be convicted by accusations alone. It used to be that accusations were not enough and prosecutors were required to present factual or supporting evidence..

Who said "Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done".