Many many people got the Pell issue wrong believing he was guilty when he wasn't. They relied on a faulty jury decision to convince themselves that they were right and that those who knew he was not guilty were blinded by ideology.

Now that those people have been smacked over the head with reality, they are desperately trying to find a way to salve their wounded self-respect.

Solution? Assert, and keep asserting as often as possible, that the High Court didn't find Pell innocent therefore he possibly did it after all.

But, for anyone of even mild cognitive ability, its clear the HC didn't find him innocent because it wasn't their job to find him innocent. Much as the Foxy's of the world, so anxious to salvage some self-respect try to deny it, courts don't find people innocent. Courts find people guilty or not guilty. Since people start off innocent, they remain as such until and unless they've been found guilty.

Pell is innocent before the law. But for those haters, he'll remain guilty of the only thing that matters to them - guilty of being an unrepentant high-profile Catholic priest.

Dear Shadow minister,

You wrote;

“The reality is that if the prosecution had proper judgement, they would never have taken the case to court. Now the result is that Pell can never be tried again for these charges, Pell can now sue the Victorian government for abuse of power and 3 judges are looking at limited careers.”

What on earth are you talking about. The prosecution had a very credible witness who held fast despite 5 hours of cross examination from a highly credentialed legal professional. His testimony was of such a nature that it convinced 12 members of a jury that he had been assaulted and convinced 7 out of 7 members of the highest court in the land that it did not contain any discrepancies or inconsistencies that would require the jury to entertain any doubt as to guilt.

On that basis alone it is quite understandable that the police and prosecutor would have rightly felt the victim should have his day in court.

It would be an utter travesty if they were to be sued for doing their jobs.

The High Court has found Pell not guilty. So let's move to the next task of reforming the system, so that the sorts of crimes that he was accused of are less feasible for any woud-be criminals.

First, surely, let priests marry, hetero or homo wouldn't matter. In fact, REQUIRE priests to be married. They can argue the doctrinal significance of all that as students in the seminary.

Second, make sure that in classroom settings, boarding school rooms, etc., it is that much more difficult for any would-be criminal to bail up some poor kid in a corner: make it a sackable offence for a teacher to be in a classroom with a single child, most certainly with himself between the kid and the door, and most certainly with the door closed. That used to be strenuously taught at teachers' college for PS teachers, so why not for teachers and other staff in religious schools ?

I don't see much point in making it mandatory for priests hearing confessions to have to report crimes to police, since any criminal above half-wit level wouldn't confess to something like that.

As for below half-wit level, oh hello Misopinionated, have any good sociology books or articles been recommended in your TAFE course ?

Joe

Nobody is venting their anger or trying to restore
their "wounded self respect,"as some have misguidely
stated. Issues are being discussed in a case that
has polarised many people. This is a discussion
forum after all. And Pell's case is a complex one
where even legal experts have various views on it.

The very nature of sexual assault is complex as stated
earlier. It regularly occurs in private, the victims
themselves are often the only witnesses, there are
generally long delays before disclosure, there is
rarely any physical evidence and the case often
centres on issues of credibility.

We also have the entrenchment throughout society of
misconceptions of stereotypes about victims/survivors
(often the victims are blamed for their own victimisation
and children routinely lieing).

These aspects pose a unique set of challenges to the
traditional judicial processing of cases.

Reforms need to move towards addressing how the system
can be more responsive to victim/survivors justice
needs.

Despite Pell's criminal conviction being overturned
Pell's legal tests may not yet be over.
Further civil cases may be brought against the
dioceses of Ballarat and Melbourne and Pell could be
a witness to those cases.

If these battles ensue - they will ensure that Pell's life
will not be a peaceful one.

We should remember that Pell's travails have unfolded before
several different audiences who have reacted differently.

The various views, polarised from the start have scarcely
shifted.

The wider community settled firmly against Pell after his
testimony to the royal commission where he blamed the
demented, the dead, and denied any responsibility.

Nevertheless he's had prominent defenders ranging from
archbishops to former PMs to columnists and shock jocks,
and of course to the old guard on OLO. All par for the course.

There will be many more chapters in the Pell case, and the
arguments and the agony will continue.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Well said.

watch out ScoMO. The abc are parroting Turnbull that you did not deserve to win the next election. Lets hope you are not the next one hunted like Pell by this grievance mob.