Well sanity has prevailed and the man charged without evidence is free. He should never have been brought to trial, because of lack of evidence

He should be adequatly compensated for his wrongful jailing.

However, until Victorian laws are changed, that state remains the only one where a man can be convicted on sexual charges on allegations alone.

Even now the Premier is saying If you make any accusation you will be believed. Such a State.

SR,

You are talking bollocks again. I have fully supported the royal commission into child abuse, and I might note, that Abbott suggested in parliament a royal commission before Juliar actually put it to parliament.

Secondly, I was always careful to separate the merits of the case from my opinion even (as you mentioned)to the point where I noted that my opinion leant towards him being guilty whereas I believed the prosecution's case was insufficient for a conviction.

Thus for you to claim that I supported Pell because he was a friend of Abbott's is rank dishonesty on your part unless you are suffering from schizophrenia. What pisses you off is that you hated Pell for what he stood for and judged him guilty irrespective of the evidence. That I was right just rubs it in your face.

Foxy,

Welcome back.

Just a few questions: What is the relevance of your last post? Are you trying to suggest that the people damaged by a handful of vile priests deserve to see an innocent one jailed? That being a Catholic Cardinal is a felony in itself or that the trial of Pell should be based on public opinion? etc..

One wonders why, as Pell was so against practising homosexuals being given the sacrament of Communion, that he was, in the opinion of many, protecting practising homosexual priests who daily received Communion?

Anti Catholic morons defaced a cathedral last night.

Dear Steele,

Witness J's lawyer Vivian Waller told ABC News Breakfast
this morning that it had been - "a very long journey for her
client."

"He is disappointed but respectful and relieved it is all over.
He is experiencing some relief that the process has come to an end
but he is also very respectful of the High Court and he accepts
the decision," she said.

Witness J said he respected and accepted the court's decision and
thanked the police for their work. He said he understood
"Why criminal cases must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt."

"No one wants to live in a society where people can be
imprisoned without due and proper process. This is a basic
civil liberty."

"But the price we pay for weighting the system in favour of the
accused is that many sexual offences against children go
unpunished."

"I would like to re-assure child sexual abuse survivors that
most people recognise the truth when they hear it. They know the
truth when they look it in the face. I am content with that."

"My journey has been long and I am relieved that it is over.
I have my ups and downs. The darkness is never far away.
Despite
the stress of the legal process and public controversy
I have tried hard to keep myself together.
I am OK."

"This case does not define me. I am a man who came forward for
my friend who sadly is no longer with us."

I am a man doing my best to be a loving dad, partner, son,
brother, and friend."

He said he hoped the outcome would not discourage
abuse survivors from reporting cases to police.

It is important to remember that this case was not about
a man who was a "lightning rod" for dissent in
his church. Nor was it about the different strands of
Catholicism, nor ideology. The case was about
child protection. Yesterday - child protection lost.

Daniel Andrews, head Commissar of the People's Socialist Republic of Victoria and People's Republic of China representative for China's 'belt and road' incursion into Australia:

"There’s been a decision and I don’t want to find myself in contempt of the High Court, so I won’t make any comments about that …"