Pell was not found innocent. He won in the High
Court on a legal technicality. He was not exonerated.
This case was not about justice but about the law.

http://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156

For the umpteenth time, stupid, there was no technicality; the majority finding was that Pell could not have possibly done what he was accused of doing in place and time. You are like an ideological music box, playing the same old tunes every you are wound up.

Pell got off on a legal technicality according to the
High Court.

As I said in my last Post. Both complainant and defendant have been denied justice according to our Australian standard of jurisprudence.

And as ARMCHAIR CRITIC correctly asked '...what the hell were the security officers doing permitting two inebriated people ingress into Parliament House a 0200h? Surely a clear breach of security and SPOs? Neither were sitting Members, nor had they a lawful excuse to do so? And the remarks attributed to TTBN - The matter was tried in the media, so neither have received justice merely innuendo rumour and unsupported facts - nothing tested in a Court of Law.

In their defence, many of these workers are intimidated by the haughty and imperious attitudes that many staff in PH display, to these 'mere attendants'. Remember these Attendants are on a relatively low wage scale, and fear of severe repercussions should they report impropriety or other misdemeanours to the Joint House Department.

And another fact I'll share with you all; Physical security at PH is undertaken by Attendants of the Joint House Department, many of whom needed to remain 'mum' at the 'goings on, in that awful structure.

And I know, who the individual was, who received the brief to train all 'Joint House' Attendants in physical security and primary terrorists interdiction. The tales of woe, and negligence, he heard from many of these downtrodden Attendants, utterly amazed him, it really did. But perhaps that's best left for another day.

"Pell was not found innocent."

That's true. He was innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't proven guilty therefore he remained innocent. No one ever charged with a crime is found innocent. They REMAIN innocent until proven guilty. Its been the rule for a coupla thousand years.

"Pell got off on a legal technicality"

That's very true. The technicality that he wasn't guilty.

Lehrmann didn't get the chance to prove he wasn't guilty. A corrupt judicial system accused him and then refused to try to prove it

mhaze,

A couple of things. As the link I gave earlier tells us -

"The cardinal's convictions by unanimous jury verdicts were
a landmark event in Australian history. The High Court's
decision may undermine confidence in the legal system
especially in child sexual abuse prosecutions."

"The High Court 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. "

"Pell has won on a legal technicality but he will
continue to be assailed by multiple law suits. In contrast
to the complainant who has been believed by a jury, by a
majority judgement and by a substantial body of public
opinion."

As for Lehrmann?

There are court documents that show other allegations against
the man. He's been accused of having sexually assaulted and
harassed a number of other women.

But hey, whatever rocks your boat