Dear Yuyutsu,

You said: 'I am very sad. This means that it can happen to any of us.'

Well not exactly, unless of course one has a guilt complex about being a paedophile. So it's definitely not something that I think will ever happen to me. But given your statement I definitely won't be looking at you the same way anymore.

The Cardinal defenders will of course cry foul again.
But this time it is the judges and not a jury who
had to decide whether the facts stacked up against
the Cardinal. In this case, after looking at all the
evidence again - they watched the videos, toured the
Cathedral, examined the robes, the judges of the
Court of Appeal by two to one upheld Cardinal Pell's
conviction.

David Marr points out in his article in The Guardian
that the key to their decision was clearly the accuser -
whose name can never be published and whose evidence
can only be read in summary. Marr confirms that ever
since the complainant's allegations emerged a couple
of years ago, those who have met him speak of an
extraordinarily convincing young man.

Two of the 3 judges agreed. They did not doubt his
evidence.

Pell's failure is set out in hundreds of judicial prose
but as Marr says it's really as simple as this - most
of the judges believed his accuser. I agree with Marr
in hoping that this man will now find some sort of peace
while Rome decides what to do with the most senior man
in its ranks ever yo be imprisoned for crimes that have
stained the reputation of the Church around the world.

But on a more positive note Australia can meanwhile claim
a more than modest victory for the law.
I agree that we don't often see power take
such a tumble in this country. It will
take some time to sink in. In the meantime the Cardinal will
probably be sent to a country jail where he will no doubt
recognise quite a few of his fellow clergy serving their sentences.

Belly,

"I am not about to enter another fruitless debate with you as I have had more intelligent conversations with my two mini Foxys"

Good for you, maybe they have more chance than others of understanding you.

Loudmouth: “But I do have misgivings about a verdict which is based only on assertions rather than evidence.”

HenryL: “I may be wrong but this is the first case I have seen where a person has been convicted purely on allegations alone.”

BigNana: “There was no evidence presented! All the jury had access to was the victims testimony.”

Come on people a sworn testimony is evidence and always has been. The issue is that is was uncorroborated which is not unusual in child sex abuse cases but made more so by the fact that the other youngster eventually committed suicide. It was that death which prompted the witness to come forward to make a police report.

In the past it has been difficult to get a conviction based on the evidence from a single person's testimony however the courts, rightly in my mind, are giving room for this to accommodate child sexual abuse victims because of the nature of the crime.

The jury was unanimous in believing him to be a credible witness. The majority of the appeal judges did as well.

That is certainly enough for me.

“In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.”
Wikipedia

So all three of you are incorrect in claiming no evidence was presented.

Foxy, once again you seem to have misunderstood what happened. The suppression orders were lifted once the case was over. The only evidence not seen or heard by the press was that given by the victim.
Not one person has come forward with any evidence that supports the victims statements. Even the other boy denied it happened.
In today’s release, the judges said they believed the victim. Not one word about supporting evidence, it was all about believing the victim.
This sets a horrific precedent in our courts, where someone can be convicted of a serious crime without any type of visual or physical evidence.
I know quite a few women who were not allow to lay charges on men who abused them as children because there was no supporting evidence. It seems to me that Pell was tried for the crimes of the Catholic Church, not himself. It was trial by social media and hence a serious miscarriage of justice

a too convenient victim to pass up for post-Christian, socialist Australia, with its activist judges,
ttbn,
I think you hit the nail there !