carry on your total deceit Steelie conflating Pell's court case with the Royal Commission. You regressives are so often dishonest you can't even see it.

People are entitled to their opinions.
But they should not make irresponsible claims that
are supposedly based on "overwhelming evidence,"
as the wife of a man who was sexually abused wrote in her
open letter to Andrew Bolt:

" Any opinion I have is irrelevant and ill informed, because
I am not privy to ALL the facts of the case."

She goes on to say:

"How about everyone stop trying to convince people of
Pell's innocence or guilt, it is not the most important issue
here."

"We have hundreds, potentially thousands of survivors throughout
Australia who have not yet come forward. And when the likes of
yourself, and other commentators, use your public profile to
cast doubt over the outcome of a trial, you make these people
even less likely to come forward and get the assistance they
so desperately need."

"If you want to support Pell go and visit him in jail. Help
fund his appeal..."

"In the meantime, here in Ballarat we are
going to try to deal with the fact that
our suicide rate among males is twice that
of Melbourne and 65% greater than the Victorian average."

" We are going to keep helping women, children, mothers, fathers,
and siblings pick up the pieces
as their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers
prematurely end their lives."

"We are going to keep lobbying for the redress scheme that the
Royal Commission recommended, so that survivors get the
practical and emotional assistance they need."

"We are going to keep trying to figure out how to reverse what
has become a cultural problem whereby males in our community
resort to suicide instead of seeking help."

"Honestly, the fact that our most senior Catholic has been
jailed is the least of our worries right now."

The letter indicates where our concerns should lie.

.

From a purely legal point of view, the High Court decision was a foregone conclusion.

In Pell’s case, any material evidence that might possibly have existed had necessarily disappeared since the sexual offences were alleged to have occurred (24 years ago).

Nevertheless, I would not be at all surprised if at least some of the High Court judges were inclined to think that he was “probably guilty”. But, of course, that is totally insufficient for conviction under criminal law. Proof “beyond reasonable doubt” is required – i.e., about 95% certainty. There was no way that could possibly be achieved.

It was just a case of “my word against yours”, which is very common in sex offences because they are committed when there is nobody around – for obvious reasons – no witnesses and no material evidence.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is the very noble principle that underpins the concept of justice in all modern democracies. It constitutes an invincible barrier of legal protection for the innocent but, unfortunately, also for the guilty.

So there we have it. Justice has been done. Pell is innocent. His name has been washed clean – as white as snow. He can walk free. He is an innocent victim. His accuser is a flagrant liar, guilty of false accusations and malicious slander.

But why did he do that ? What did he hope to get out of it ? That remains a mystery.

Could he have been telling the truth ? The High Court judgement does not rule that out. It simply declares that Pell has not been proven guilty.

Does that mean that he might be guilty ? The High Court judgement does not rule out that possibility. It limpidly declares :

« … that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place » :

http://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

Short and snappy.

.

In the British legal system, and its Australian derivative, a person who is charged with an offence, is innocent until proven guilty. Of course, somewhat going against this presumption of innocence, such a person may have to be detained until their trial is over. But the purpose of a trial is to find someone either guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If they are not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence, then they are to be presumed innocent, and freed.

So it is in this case with Pell. If anybody has actual evidence against him on some other charge, then they can bring it to the attention of the police and the courts. If not, they hold their peace.

I have no affection for Pell, that holier-than-thou sanctimony has always got up my nose: why do so many of them talk like that ? So bloody holy. I think I may have Irish Catholic ancestors, but I've never been a believer, let alone a Catholic one. So I would be interested any evidence that might be brought against him of illegally shielding pedophiles or fiddling with kids, something beyond an assertion.

But not merely someone's asserton. As a Leftie, I know that sort of 'evidence' got the Rosenbergs executed in the US back in 1953, nothing more at the time by way of evidence was presented. Yes, later, much documentation was found confirming their guilt in supplying nuclear secrets to the Russians. But not up until the time of their murder.

Find evidence and bring charges on that basis. Otherwise, move on.

Joe

Dear Foxy,

Agree entirely. Daniel Andrews rightly spoke to those victims, many of whom have not come forward, who would have found this judgement very confronting. Here was one of them, someone who survived 5 hours of cross examination by one of the most astute and aggressive silks with their credibility intact and all 7 members of the highest court in the land “accepted that the Court of Appeal majority did not err in holding that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt." Yet the perpetrator was let off.

How unlikely are those, who do not have the ability to provide such unassailable compelling evidence due to circumstance or poor life outcomes due to the abuse afflicted upon them, to ever feel they have a hope in hell of receiving justice?

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I have been reflecting on just how circumstantial the defense's evidence really was. Firstly Pell did not testify so the veracity of the things he claimed in his police interview were never fully tested in court. But more importantly the testimonies were not about what actually happened on that day but more to what was assumed to have happened given Church practices that virtually all of them conceded were not iron clad.

It should also be noted that three of the four witnesses were obviously very tied to the Church and would have been at pains not to think or act adversely toward it. Whether this subvertly or even overtly impacted their testimonies we will not be able to tell as the prosecutor did not directly challenge them on my reading of the case.

Leaving aside Pell's guilt or otherwise this judgement will undoubtedly give succour to many evil perpetrators who have been responsible for permanently damaging so many Aussie kids.

Dear loudmouth2,

First hand testimony is evidence and it was more than what was offered in Pell's defense.

Opinion,

Tut, tut! How can you as an Educated and Enlightened former Arts Graduand make such a gaffe, in English, as to use a diminishing qualifying adjective with Catholic, which is a word that cannot be qualified in the sense which you used?

Did you get your degree from a foreign Degree Mill by mail order?