Shadow Minister,

You ask: "How was Lindy a scapegoat, and how was Pell not?"

I say: "You work it out, you're the engineer."

.

To all and sundry,

.

There has been no finding of truth – in fact, no finding at all. No finding of innocence – or any satisfactory, reasonable finding of guilt. No finding that the Cardinal did not commit the crimes alleged. All we can now say is that there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

But nothing is certain. The doubt as to his guilt, and therefore as to his innocence, remains. The complainant has said that the Cardinal assaulted him and his mate, but (though his evidence was credible and reliable), he may be wrong. After all this time, all we’re left with is a serious allegation, reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

In overturning Pell’s conviction, the High Court did not order a retrial. That is understandable given the exhaustive trial, retrial and appeal procedures that had already taken place. There was no further issue possible. Justice was in stalemate. As is inevitable in sex offence cases that boil down to “my word against yours”, clear determination of innocence or guilt was impossible, given the legal constraints placed on them :

• presumption of innocence of the accused
• burden of proof on the prosecution : “beyond reasonable doubt” (at least 95% certainty)
• accused’s right to silence throughout the trial (simple observer) without cross-examination

In civil trials, there is no presumption of innocence, no right to silence and the onus of proof for the allegations is less burdensome – not beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities (more than 50% certainty).

The civil contest is more even. plaintiff against accused. The Cardinal will presumably be a party to the proceedings and will need to give his version of the facts and submit himself to cross-examination.

The outcome will be interesting.

.

Banjo Paterson,

I can you see a movie coming out of this.

If there is a civil suit it could even become bigger than Ben Hur.

On one side we will have Pell supported by the full resources of the Vatican and on the other the plaintiff backed by all those who want to see Pell become the next fallen angel.

Interesting times if the civil suit goes ahead.

But who could we get to play Pell in the movie? What's that George? ………… Who do you reckon? ……….Schwarzenegger.

Mr 0

Once again you have displayed an astounding ignorance of the English language. That you suck so badly at what you claim to be your speciality makes you a figure of pity.

A scapegoat is a person or thing that is made to bear blame for others. which is precisely what happened to Pell. Pell was punished for the unchallenged crimes of the Church in which the Victorian police historically turned a blind eye. The same cannot be said for Lindy Chamberlain.

I asked you to support your wild hyperbole, and once again you failed through incompetence.

Shadow Minister,

I may not be perfect but a least I'm not just an engineer like you.

Your knowledge of the Arts things like history, anthropology, archaeology, sociology, philosophy, etc., is very poor and you just make things up as you go along thinking that you have a good knowledge of these subjects.

I think you spend too much time feeding the chickens with your engineer mates who probably know even less than you: "Here chook chook chook! Here chook chook chook!"

Mr 0,

Since I have just demonstrated that I am better at history than you as a failed engineer, I suggest that you stick to flipping burgers and keep your sucking to yourself.