Foxy,
"That Religion Be Not a Cloak For Hypocrisy."

Perhaps what I wrote was too subtle. I wasn't talking about using religion as a cloak for hypocrisy, I was talking about you using hatred of a particular religion as an excuse for hypocrisy.

So did Lindy Chamberlain suffer an injustice?

Mr O,

Who luxuriates in the possession of any number of fictitious degrees writes...""Where just like doctors!". I must admit that I've often asked "we're are the doctors".

mhaze,

No, you are wrong again in your assumption.

Actually I wrote it exactly the way an engineer would spell it. It's called a 'pun'. Get it now? Savvy? Capice amico? Or do you want be to spell it out for you?

PS Maybe you can explain it to Shadow Minister too.

mhaze,

you accuse me of using hatred of a particular religion
as an excuse for hypocrisy?

Sorry. You've lost me there.

I have no control over your comprehension skills.
Or what you may think or interpret.

However I can assure you that providing reports
and opinions of legal academics even if they for you
might not be what you want to hear does not qualify
as hatred of a particular religion or as an excuse
for hypocrisy.

As Banjo Paterson pointed out in his post:

" The High Court is not infallible. It is accountable
to society for its decisions. Questioning its decisions
in not only a right. It is a duty. As the sovereign
people in a modern democracy, we have the power
to rectify iniquities and improve our justice. As
responsible citizens we should not just "move on."
Justice may not have been done."

So did Lindy Chamberlain suffer an injustice?

mhaze,

What's your problem?, Come on, we're all amateur psychologists on The Forum (except you the patient) so out with it, what's troubling you?

mhaze,

You're still persisting, my oh my.

The Lindy Chamberlain case is a reminder that
the criminal justice system does get it wrong,
with each error bearing its own human cost.

The Chamberlain case is only one example of
wrongful conviction following a flawed criminal trial.

Hundreds of potentially innocent people are languishing
in prison. They won't get the chance that Cardinal
George Pell did. They don't have the funds, nor fame, to
appeal to the High Court in the manner Pell did.

And in those rare cases when they are able to attempt it,
they are extremely unlikely to be granted special
leave to appeal as Cardinal Pell was.

As I keep repeating - hopefully truth will prevail.
As it eventually did in the Chamberlain case.