Dear Josephus,

Again with respect you haven't answered the direct question I put to you. I will repeat it;

"The 7 judges did not deem the victim a false witness indeed they found his "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."

I believe the 7 judges. Why don't you?"

Mr O. People around the world are finding ways
to spend both Easter and Passover as
during this period that many countries remain under
lockdown to limit the spread of corona virus.

Many people have been, and will be, attending various
services online.

Thank You for your concern.

.

Dear Joe (loudmouth2),

.

You wrote :

« The highest court unanimously has now found him [Pell] not guilty, which I think means 'innocent' … As an ex-Maoist and lifetime atheist, I would have preferred some material evidence to be presented and Pell to be found guilty. But there wasn't any. So he's innocent. End of. Move on … »
.

In the vernacular, “not guilty” and “innocent” are synonymous but not in legal terms. Verdicts in criminal courts are either guilty or not guilty. There is no such thing as a verdict of “innocent”.

The only reference to innocence in a court of law is the term “presumption of innocence” which means that the accused is presumed (at least until the final verdict) to have not committed the crime of which he is accused.

However, the final verdict does not go that far. It does not declare that the accused did not commit the crime. It simply concludes that he has not been proven “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, declared “not guilty” and “acquitted” (discharged, set free) – irrespective of whether he committed the crime or not.

Pell’s accuser, Witness J, graciously accepted the High Court’s decision, adding :

« I understand their view that there was not enough evidence to satisfy the Court beyond all reasonable doubt that the offending occurred … 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 hate to think that one outcome of this case is that people are discouraged from reporting to the police.

« Most people recognise the truth when they hear it. I am content with that.

« My journey has been long, and I am relieved that it is over ... this case does not define me. I am not the abuse I suffered as a child.

« I am a man who came forward for my friend who, sadly, is no longer with us »

As you say, Joe : “End of.” He has “moved on …”.

.

SR,

Where did you misrepresent the judgement?

"The only doubt of guilt came from the testimony of 4 witnesses who were essentially asked to remember what occurred on a specific day over two decades ago without the imprint on their memories of a perderist priest thrusting his genitalia in their faces."

This is patently untrue. There was a single witness for the prosecution with no corroborating evidence, there were 4 other witnesses whose recollection of the day's events clashed with the prosecution witness and that the routine of the service meant that Pell was accompanied at times, and his time in the side room was so short as to make the main witnesses recollection improbable.

The reality is that the witnesses memory was also >20yrs old, and while he might remember the salient details, his recollection of the peripheral details was the weak link in the case.

Banjo,

The issue with verdicts of not guilty vs innocent are a complete furphy as even when the defendant is proven innocent, the judgement is not guilty and given the presumption of innocence, the judgement of not guilty assumes this.

Proving innocence where there is no physical evidence and no outside witnesses is also pretty close to impossible, which is the basis for the presumption of innocence. That posters have used this pretext to salvage their dignity is amusing because they also react when it is pointed out that their claim that Bill Shorten was cleared of rape is also bollocks.

Shadow,

You say; "other witnesses whose recollection of the day's events". The four defence witnesses had no particular recollection of that particular day, as it was an ordinary church day for them, like so many other days around that time.

The prosecution witness on the other hand, might have a clearer recollection of that particular day, it was not an ordinary church day for him. No one would find a day when a cardinal is thrusting his penis up ones rectum, dress in his finery, inside a cathedral, an ordinary church day. Although it is the Catholic Church, it might be something they do after Sunday service to get their rocks off, after a stressful week of kiddie fiddling!

Foxy, no probs. Actually I got the idea from watching Mario and Luigi.