' stopping the Vatican from getting tarnished by association was an even more important thing.'

you have a very short memory Mr O. The vatican has been tarnished for hundreds of years. I am actually surprised they let someone honest like Pell to stay in there. I suppose if you are willing to lick the popes boots that's all that matters.

Misopinionated,

You're half right that:

".... you don't have to be an intellectual giant ...."

to suspect some devious conspiracy

" .... behind the scenes to get Pell back on the streets".

You only have to be a half-wit :)

And are you suggesting that the seven justices of the High Court were all in some secret plot to get Pell off ? Of course, evidence of either Pell's guilt or of some devious conspiracy by the Vatican or aliens would be useful.

One day, we will all learn that the word of one person, with no back-up evidence, nothing material, and no corroboration, is not enough to find someone guilty. It shouldn't have been applied in Lindy Chamberlain's case or in the Rosenbergs' case either. To my great shame, I was ready to believe for a while that Lindy Chamberlain was guilty, so I'm not so brilliant.

In this case, the timing required, the foreknowledge required somehow of the boys' whereabouts, makes the whole accusation very improbable. For me, the mis-remembering of the kitchen lay-out, which didn't exist back in 1996-1997, but did after 2006 or so when it replaced a cupboard, adds to doubt.

But if you're happy with your witch-burning, keep going. There are actually some very comprehensive texts about all that which you could learn from in your on-going PG history studies.

Joe

Dear loudmouth2,

No you are wrong.

As I put to Shadow Minister the fact that an alleged incident can be described as ‘improbable’ does not mean that the evidence concerning that incident is untrue. And, of course, a conviction for an offence can be based solely upon the evidence of a witness who is sufficiently credible and reliable, even if that witness’ account is properly described as implausible.

Misopinionated,

This book - a marriage of history and sociology - might be a good starting-point for you:

Burning Bodies : Communities, Eschatology, and the Punishment of Heresy in the Middle Ages

By (author) Michael D. Barbezat

Burning Bodies interrogates the ideas that the authors of historical and theological texts in the medieval West associated with the burning alive of Christian heretics. Michael Barbezat traces these instances from the eleventh century until the advent of the internal crusades of the thirteenth century, depicting the exclusionary fires of hell and judicial execution, the purifying fire of post-mortem purgation, and the unifying fire of God's love that medieval authors used to describe processes of social inclusion and exclusion.

Burning Bodies analyses how the accounts of burning heretics alive referenced, affirmed, and elaborated upon wider discourses of community and eschatology. Descriptions of burning supposed heretics alive were profoundly related to ideas of a redemptive Christian community based upon a divine, unifying love, and medieval understandings of what these burnings could have meant to contemporaries cannot be fully appreciated outside of this discourse...

276 pages and about $ 80 on Book Depository, free postage. But you've probably already read it ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

I didn't suggest that the High Court was in on any plot. That's just you trying to twist what people say.

Loudmouth,

It's a shame you were never able to qualify to do Arts because I think you would have made a great Arts graduate.