Foxy,

Milligan may well be an eye opener but could you open our eyes and tell us why you think that the other boy's parents would lie about him?

Their testimony alone, if you don't brand them as liars, shews reasonable doubt.

Dear Foxy,

There are usually many sides to an issue, so I disagree that this particular case is simply a matter of "Pell will have his defenders and his accusers."

I wouldn't be surprised if Pell if as guilty as hell of innumerable offences against young boys, but I am very concerned about the flimsiness of the evidence in this case - one person's uncorroborated testimony, and to my mind, a very unlikely scenario at a busy cathedral.

I would love for stronger evidence such as CCTV or other eye-witnesses - or conversely, witnesses (apart from the clergy) who (for some special reason) remember chatting to Pell for some time on the steps on that day.

I'm also puzzled about how Pell would have known that there were young boys in the priest's sacristy, and how he would have calculated how long he had to whip around to the sacristy, undress enough to abuse those boys, re-dress himself, and get back to the steps again, without being missed.

So maybe I'm a defender of due process, versus others who have an 'anything will do to get the bastard' approach ?

Cheers,

Joe

We should also remember that the result of the appeal hinges on one person's opinion.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I'm sorry about yesterday, I tire very easily these days & by early evening, my mind becomes further scrambled, and I seem to peter out. I make no excuses, my problem!

A question if I may Steele - Under the Scottish legal system, they have (or did) have a system where a jury may find three perfectly acceptable verdicts, in their criminal procedure.

Guilty; Not Guilty, or Not proven. Do you think their system would work here, especially when you consider the machinations associated with Cardinal PELL'S case?

Or would you share my own view, (the third option) 'Not proven' is patently unfair, particularly if the person is innocent, and every knock on his door, for the rest of his life, might herald a visit from police? The individual must then live, in a perpetual climate of official suspicion.

I genuinely believe BLACKSTONE got it right in the 18th century - 'A hundred guilty me should go free than a single innocent man is convicted'? Please don't consider me some limp-wristed former copper gone soft on crime. Nevertheless, I do believe, however, that fairness and impartiality are an essential component of our legal system. 'There but through the grace of God go I.'

o sung wu,

"A hundred guilty men should go free than a single innocent man is convicted"

You got it right, that principle is one of the reasons that the death penalty was abolished.
http://www.cato.org/policing-in-america/chapter-4/blackstones-ratio

Is Mise,

Yes, I remember the killing of Ronald Ryan in 1967 on the grounds that he had shot a warder, Hodson, while trying to escape from Pentridge: long after his murder by the Bolte government, a warder up in a control tower (I think named Lange ?) admitted shooting Hodson.

But it was a bit late by then.

Joe