ttbn

I have more faith in the courts, but there are strict rules to be followed. I hope that Pell's case is seen as a matter of public importance. As is evident in this discussion the issue of a person being convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a single complainant has an ambit well beyond that of the Catholic clergy.

JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 35A
Criteria for granting special leave to appeal

In considering whether to grant an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court under this Act or under any other Act, the High Court may have regard to any matters that it considers relevant but shall have regard to:

(a) whether the proceedings in which the judgment to which the application relates was pronounced involve a question of law:

(i) that is of public importance, whether because of its general application or otherwise; or

(ii) in respect of which a decision of the High Court, as the final appellate court, is required to resolve differences of opinion between different courts, or within the one court, as to the state of the law; and

(b) whether the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in the particular case, require consideration by the High Court of the judgment to which the application relates.

Dear Fester,

You left out (c) whether he was dressed for the occasion.

Catholic Church will suffer until they tell us they are truly sorry and truly intend to bring in changes
Pell has been convicted and it is not our job to challenge that ruling

Dear HenryL.,

It's not true that we have heard all the evidence.
The key to both the unanimous decision of the jury
and the judges decision to uphold that decision
was the fact that they were able to look at all
the evidence not only ones that we have heard in
summary. The judges watched the videos, toured the
Cathedral, examined the robes, and made their verdict.

We, like our two former PMs, did not spend a minute
in court. did not hear a word or read a word of all
the evidence being presented and therefore have
to accept the verdict of those who did.

A majority found for the complainant against the
Cardinal. His conviction by a unanimous jury was
upheld. He is a guilty child abuser.

The key to their decision was clearly the accuser.
And those who have met him speak of an extraordinarily
convincing young man.

There's more at the following link:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/23/cardinal-george-pells-failed-appeal-and-why-his-chances-in-the-high-court-are-slim

I have to tell you folks that I'll be out of
commission for a while. I'm having some surgery
on Tuesday 27th August 2019.

I don't want you to get the wrong impression if I don't
respond for a while.

The last time it happened - it appears some of you were
concerned about me. So this time I thought I'd get in
early and let you know what's going on ahead of time.

Foxy,

"However this had nothing to do with the family of his
dead friend. It appears you got things mixed up."

You obviously think that Pell is guilty, so you must also think that the other young man and/or his parents were lying.
If the young man who died said to his parents that the incidents with Pell didn't happen and he was telling the truth then Pell is innocent.

You, quite obviously, don't believe them therefore, you think them to be liars.

Of course, I may be wrong and you think that Pell is innocent.