Dear Shadow Minister,

“Witness J stood to gain financially from a guilty verdict and subsequent suit,”

Bulldust. There has been no indication that the victim had intended suing Pell even after his conviction. The victim has repeatedly indicated that he was not looking to take that path, one incidentally which is still open to him despite Pell's acquittal on the grounds of insufficient evidence. OJ's victim's parents successfully sued him despite him being found not guilty as the onus of proof is more even handed in civil trials.

“Witness J's testimony was described by the high court as compelling not credible,”

Wrong. From the judgement; "It may be accepted that the Court of Appeal majority did not err in holding that A's 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."

“Not one shred of Witness J's evidence could be corroborated by other witnesses or physical evidence.”
Which is the very nature of historical sexual abuse cases, particularly by the clergy.

“The only other witnesses evidence contradicted Witness J's testimony, and the prosecution could not or would not challenge it.”

They certainly did challenge parts of the testimonies the robes being a prime example. It showed that a categorical statement from prime witnesses was completely false. This was an OJ Simpson's glove moment.

Look I know you on the right are using this to push back on the MeToo movement but you really need to accept the judgement was not a reason to call for a dismantling of the Victoria Police, nor the Prosecutors Office, nor the ABC. They were all doing their jobs and will not be successfully sued by Pell for doing so even though you want it so dearly.

Foxy,

" ...He did it for his friend who died."

Then why did he think that his friend lied when the friend told his mother that what he had said about Pell was untrue, or did he think that his dead friend's mother was a liar?
Either the dead friend was telling the truth and so was his mother or one of them was lying.

Reasonable doubt?

Reasonable doubt is not a technicality and academics who say that it is are either frauds, sadly lacking in legal knowledge or pushing a lie for their own purposes.

Reasonable doubt:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable+doubt
Legal technicality: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/technicality

I don't think this argument will be resolved on The Forum OLO but at least there is something to please both sides in this dispute.

For those who believe Pell is a paedophile there is the fact that he was convicted and at least served part of his prison sentence and he is now deemed to be an ex-con.

For those who believe Pell is not a paedophile there is the fact that his sentence was cut short allowing him to walk around free.

And I think that is how the history books will record it for a long time to come.

The father of one of the choirboys believes his
son suffered post-traumatic stress disorder because
he had been abused. That's why he turned to drugs.
He died from an accidental over-dose.

The father claims his son suffered:

Shame, loneliness, depression and struggled as a
result of the abuse. The son died of a heroin overdose
in 2014, aged 30. He never spoke to his parents about being
abused. But his father believes that was the reason his
son turned to drugs.

Apparently it is very common for survivors of sexual
abuse to turn to drugs as a way to block out this abuse.

Survivors need to be shown that it doesn't matter how
important you are, you can be held to account. They need
to feel that they will be believed and listened to.

The more we start talking about this seriously, the safer
kids will be.

Mr O, in the end truth will prevail.

History will judge.

'Shame, loneliness, depression and struggled as a
result of the abuse.'

The only worse sin I can think of than child abuse is accusers of innocent people who use manipulation and lies and then dig in even after 7 High Court judges finds them out.