Paul,

If only someone could dig up evidence against that bastard Pell. Meanwhile, any assertion will do.

I'm roughly the same age as the children of the Rosenbergs, executed in the US for supposedly passing on nuclear secrets to the Russians in the early fifties; my communist parents were roughly the ages of their parents. They were electrocuted on the word of (I think?) Ethel's brother. So I'm a bit touchy about assertions being sufficient to kill someone.

If any evidence could be found against Pell, I would welcome it to get him put away. But not in this particular case: yes, it might have been possible for him to slip away from the steps of the Cathedral, sneak around to the sacristy in his Cardinal's gear and without his sacristan, hoping that nobody was there but two boys and that he had time to get some of his gear off, muck around with them to his satisfaction, get dressed again, and slip back to the steps without his absence being noticed. Yeah, that's all possible. And there's somebody to claim that that's how it happened.

It's possible, but possible is not necessarily actual. What CAN happen doesn't necessarily happen. Possible is not necessarily plausible which is not necessarily what might have happened. What strengthens an argument or a case like this is evidence. The bloke didn't really remember one crucial piece of evidence - i.e. that the clothing cupboard had been later replaced when he 'remembered' a mini-kitchen suite in its place, which had been put in its place after 2005.

How many times have we all been over this ? This idiotic argument about evidence versus belief ? Evidence versus passion ? Hard-hearted demands for some sorts of back-up versus virtuous and kind-hearted support for any and all assertions which support our suspicions ?

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

Oh I know full well what you mean, you want to imply some sort of delineation between the reference give by Hanson-Young and that offered by Howard, that Howard's was somehow superior. All more of your usual rot of course.

Hanson-Young has said what prompted her to agree was because of the full admission of guilt and the wishes of both parties to heal their relationship. There was no such admission of guilt nor contrition from convicted paedophile Pell yet Howard spoke glowingly of his impeccable character.

How's that for an assessment.

Dear loudmouth2,

What is it with your side of politics? Embellishment is a given due to the porosity of your arguments? When does moving his vestments aside suddenly become getting his gear off and having to dress again? It doesn't. Flogging a very deceased equine now old chap. Give it a rest.

As to your burden of proof are you saying there is nothing a victim could say to you about a historical sex crime in their youth where they were raped by a priest alone and were too afraid to report it at the time?

In other words as long as a priest plans an assault carefully loudmouth2, were he on a jury deciding the case, would not vote to convict under any circumstances even if he were convinced of the guilt of the perpetrator?

Wow.

SR,

As Pell has been exonerated by the high court's 7-0 unanimous decision, it would appear that John Howard's judgement was spot on.

Dear Shadow,

Ultimately in this case the evidence against Pell was not strong enough, nothing to do with the judgement of Little Johnny Howard. Pell was right about one thing, his case was not a referendum on the wrongs done by the (Australian) Catholic Church against children, and they are many, but a case against him personalty, on that score we must respect the decision of the High Court. This particular matter brought against Pell may now be closed, but there are many more things that await a legal outcome. An interesting read will be what is contained in the Royal Commission report concerning Pell when the redactions are removed.

Paul,

Your admission that "the evidence against Pell was not strong enough" is a considerable understatement if you read the high court judgement.

While during the original trial I felt that the evidence was not sufficient, my opinion was predisposed to assuming some guilt on his behalf. The high court judgment has shown that the evidence was flimsy at best and should never have been taken to court as with Shorten.

It would appear that the original judgement was to some extent a referendum on the Catholic church and not on the facts of the case.