Shadow Minister,

You just said: "I never claimed history was BS."

Then why in your post of 17 April above did you write:

"History and Sociology is not worth a pinch of BS ............"

I think you are just an angry man because you yourself could never do the Arts things like history, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, philosophy, etc. There are a lots of successful vocationally trained people like you in the world who would love to be an anthropologist, historian, archaeologist, sociologist, philosopher, etc., instead of being a mindless drone sitting behind a desk waiting for the day they retire.

Shadow Minister,

For many people it will be difficult or even impossible
to understand how the unanimous jury verdicts of guilty,
further supported by a court of appeal, majority of
the two judges, can be overturned.

Civil legal actions against Pell are ongoing, so his
legal battles aren't over yet. More civil lawsuits may well
follow, especially after the release of the royal
commission's findings about his conduct in Ballarat.

The high court appeal did not ask whether Pell committed the
offences. It asked whether the two majority judges in the
Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing Pell's earlier
appeal made an error about the nature of the correct
LEGAL principles, or their application.

The high court judgement found there was not enough evidence
to convict him. The offence could have occurred, but there
was enough "reasonable doubt" in the allegations.

Careful analysis of the full reasoning of the high court
is required to fully assess the court's decision.

In contrast, the complainant has been believed by a jury,
by a majority judgement, and by a substantial
body of public opinion. He did not come forward for
any financial gain. He did it for his friend who died.

The judges did not accuse the young witness of being a
liar or a fantasist. They did not find his evidence
contained discrepancies or displayed inadequacies.

Long term, the high court's decision reinforces
scepticism in senior legal circles about prosecution of
accusations of sex crimes committed a long time ago.

The question that has yet to be fully
explored is how the law operates here when
time has placed everyone - the accused,
accusers, police, and prosecutors at
such a disadvantage.

Legal academics have described Pell as being acquitted on
a technicality. At the other extreme, his supporters suggest
the high court finding means Pell should never have been prosecuted.

This disparity highlights the role of the legal system.
There is no system that is flawless. This high court decision
may undermine confidence in the legal system, especially
in child sexual abuse prosecutions.

"But it's hard to claim he's faced an injustice,..."

yeah, I feel the same way about Lindy Chamberlain.

Sure she was persecuted and prosecuted by a police system that gloried in the dual virtues of being both corrupt and utterly incompetent. (Remind you of anyone else we know?)
Sure she was convicted on evidence that now looks utterly implausible.(Remind you of anyone else we know?)
Sure she suffered from having the media decide that, as a member of a hated and feared group, she was fair game for distortion and lies such that the jury pool was, by the time of the trial, utterly convinced of her guilt.(Remind you of anyone else we know?)
Sure her marriage was destroyed, her life's work ruined.
Sure she was separated from her children for 4 years, one a new born.

But, heh, she was finally found not guilty and let out of gaol. So all's well that ends well. I don't know why she or anyone else would complain. The justice system worked exactly as expected.

After all, she was allowed to appeal all the way to the High Court and how many others get that privilege?

There are few things in this world as ugly as rank hypocrisy. One of those few is rank hypocrisy based on hatred on the other.

mhaze,

Yes exactly, one has to be well connected to appeal to the high court.

Pell - Vatican - the State.

Can you see the link?

mhaze,

"That Religion Be Not a Cloak For Hypocrisy."
Suggested by Psalm 5.
Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan.

O God
frustrate the purposes of evil men
who make a show of piety
while in their hearts
they mock at righteousness

They exploit their fellowmen
and cheat them of their due
and then seek to bribe you
with lavish gifts
and of the hard-earned toil
of those they rob

Make known to them
thar you despise
their wrongful psturings
and loathe
their sanctimonious cant.

May those who worship you in truth
never come to doubt your unfailing justice

May they never be driven by suffering
to sinful utterance
or disloyal deed

How the hypocrites gloat
in tearing honest men away from you!

Having driven the righteous from your presence
they remain sole masters of religion's power
and use its symbols for their own ends

Open O God, men's eyes
so that they may discern the evil intent
of those who invoke your name
to hollow their ungodly deeds

Create in men a repugnance
to all pretense and hypocrisy:
fortify against scorn and ridicule
all those who trust in you
Let them abide in the confidence
that truth will in the end prevail.

348 posts. Wow!