An innocent Catholic Archbishop?

Cardinal Pell case is a complex one. In 2018 a jury unanimously
found Cardinal Pell guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" of
FIVE child sexual offences.

This standard of proof is high, but does not require
absolute proof. The jury believed the complainant and
rejected Pell's defence. Pell won in the High Court on
a legal technicality. He was not found innocent.

The High Court decision may undermine confidence in the
legal system especially in child sexual abuse prosecutions.

Foxy,

Sometimes you spout utter bollocks, Pell was found not guilty (innocent) unanimously by all 7 high court judges precisely because the "evidence" against Pell did not in any way meet the standards needed for a conviction.

The duty of the judge at the trial is not to just rubber stamp jury decisions but to advise the jury of the soundness of any evidence and if necessary overturn erroneous jury decisions. The High court decision was a severe slap in the face for the delinquent Victorian judges.

shadow minister,

Cardinal Pell got off on a technicality. The High Court
judges went according to the letter of the law whereas
the earlier jury believed the complainant and rejected Pell's
defence. In any case we have already argued this matter in
the past. I have no wish to continue to argue with you.

Foxy,

Lack of evidence is not just a technicality it is a fundamental flaw.

The trial judge did not follow the letter of the law if his judgement was so thoroughly trashed. This nitwit should be censured or disbarred.

If people could be convicted solely on the verbal evidence of one involved witness base on the eloquence of that witness alone there would be dozens of innocent people convicted.

Shorten was let off with more solid evidence against him.

shadow minister,

Cardinal Pell had a fair run. He had the best lawyer
that money could buy. He had the support of the Church
and the Vatican. And yet a jury found him guilty.

Perhaps because not only the five sexual abuse cases, but over
26 others which were not put on trial because the victims
had died, et cetera. On the law of averages - his innocence
is questionable to say the least. There's too much needing
answers to give him an all clear. Yet the High Court did
so - so there it is.

I guess his guilt or innocence is
something that we may never really know. You believe he's
innocent. I don't. Lets leave it at that.

Hi Foxy,

Have you not noticed, shonkyminister has a soft spot for paedophiles, he's always talking about them on the forum.