It is actions not words that matter.
And as stated earlier that is why we
need faster programs on national re-dress
for survivors of abuse and why every
institution needs to sign up immediately.

For decades institutions chose to cover for
offenders and concealed their crimes because
they valued their reputations more than the
lives of children in their care.

One of the cold hard truths revealed by the
royal commission into institutional responses
to child sexual abuse was that survivors and
victims who sought help were seldom believed.
Instead against the weight and power of both
church and state they were marginalised, shamed,
and re-abused.

Last year as a parliament and a nation we apologised
for the abuse, the neglect, the wilful blindness, the
cries for help that were heard and ignored.

It's time now to act.

SR,

Yes, indeed, there must be thousands of cases of child abuse that have gone unpunished.

But, with respect, this is not the issue: is one person's testimony sufficient to find someone guilty without any other back-up evidence ? How can one tell the difference between a lie and the truth without some sort of corroborating evidence, no matter how evil the offence is supposed to be ?

This 'principle' could have far-reaching consequences, especially in much less favourable political times.

Joe

Hi (again) STEELEREDUX...

Recollection can be a curious thing when one 'jumps the box.' It matters little how experienced you are in Court, whether under examination or cross-examination, sometimes that recollection evaporates entirely. That's why police have this little prepared ritual that goes like this '...your Honour my memory is exhausted in this instances, may I refer to my notes/statement to refresh my memory...'?
This is allowed due to the complex nature of some criminal investigations.

We're all fallible everyone of us, none more so than in Court, with many eyes glued to us, and people listening to our responses, hoping for a few sparks to fly.

However, to respond to your inquiry, POTTER is obviously conflicted in his earlier evidence, by saying that PELL never robed in the priest's sacristy? But later he recanted by saying, they (he) used the Priest's sacristy because the archbishop's sacristy was 'unavailable.' His reliability is questionable, due in part, to the importance of the precise place the alleged offending took place, the priest's sacristy. I'd agree (as a pure layman) POTTER is not a reliable witness in my view. Nonetheless, it will be interesting, if PELL'S appeal to the H.C. is allowed - they MUST acquit as the conviction is manifestly unsafe.

Joe,

The Court of Appeal judges looked at all of the
evidence again. They watched all the videos of all
the witnesses, they went to the places the jury was taken to
and they examined the robes. They did it all again.
They were in fact like a third jury.

The majority found for the complainant against the
Cardinal. His conviction by a unanimous jury was upheld.

He is a guilty child abuser.

In 2012 - George Pell stated:

"Back in those days they were entitled to think of
paedophilia as simply a sin you could repent of."

At that time it was thought that Pell was speaking in
defence of the notorious paedophile and his room mate -
Ridsdale. Now, after Pell's conviction his words
suddenly have a new meaning. Had he been speaking about
himself?

Dear Foxy,

Yes, of course, Pell made light of the crime of pedophilia in 2012, but perhaps we're unintentionally sliding away from the issue I was trying to highlight: no matter how vile the crime, corroborating evidence - not just a single testimony, nor 'what could have happened and therefore did happen' arguments - is surely needed, to distinguish an assertion from solid evidence ?

I certainly don't mean 'beyond the slightest doubt', but 'beyond reasonable doubt', if we can distinguish those two.

Cheers,

Joe

Issy,

Why are you asking me, should a couple of clowns be prosecuted for perjury? A matter for the court, an institution I have complete faith in. Unlike the forums bush lawyers and Rumpole want-a-be's, who incidentally are clueless to the evidence, and have the legal mind of a naet.

The forums 'Usual Suspects' are only jabbering on about Paedophile Pell, and the wrongfulness of his conviction, because he is one of their pin up boys! There is much more to the Pell story than his sodomising of two innocent children over 20 years ago, much it yet to be revealed. Just how friendly was Pell with Ridsdale and other notorious Catholic paedophile priests?

BTW; To the ill informed who asked about my concern with priests in school playgrounds, what harm could they do? Ridsdale and his mate dragged children screaming from the school playground to where they could then bugger them without other seeing.

Waiting for the Catholic Mafia to reform its oversight on paedophilia within, is like waiting for the American Mafia to give up crime, it ain't going to happen!