(April 10, 2020 at 8:00 am)Mr Greene Wrote: He was not found innocent, the verdict was that there was could bne 'reasonable doubt' whether the appeal court judges had given due weight to a number of character witnesses which the cardinal produced at appeal.
The complainants evidence was considered 'thoroughly credible and reliable'.

ie; Got off on a technicality.

The smug bastard doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.

Quote:Pell wrote that the sexual abuse crisis damaged thousands of victims and that “from many points of view the crisis is also bad for the Catholic church”.

Just bad? Seeing how the Catholic church is responsible for the crisis it should be made to suffer greatly, but that's never going to happen.

Quote:So, too, some would see Covid-19 as a bad time for those who claim to believe in a good and rational God, the Supreme Love and Intelligence, the Creator of the universe,” he said. “And it is a mystery; all suffering, but especially the massive number of deaths through plagues and wars. But Christians can cope with suffering better than the atheists can explain the beauty and happiness of life.

I think this fucker is going to take his show on the road protesting his innocence.
I hope he starts raving like Ian Paisley or a bible belt loon.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...corp-piece

(April 10, 2020 at 8:00 am)Mr Greene Wrote: He was not found innocent

He was found not guilty

Mr Greene Wrote:The complainants evidence was considered 'thoroughly credible and reliable.

"It is evident that there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof”.

Is the testimony of a complainant enough to convict someone?

He essentially got 'the Scottish verdict'.  Scottish law allows for a verdict of 'not proven', which is basically the jury saying, 'We really think you're guilty, but the prosecutors did a lousy job.'

In practical terms, it's the same as an acquittal.

Boru

A lot of people seem to think he's guilty.
I am honestly wondering why or what was the evidence that most convicted Pell in people's minds?
Maybe I missed something in the news?
I thought it was just one guy's word against another's.

That one guy was the one who didn't commit suicide.

(April 14, 2020 at 8:04 am)Little lunch Wrote: A lot of people seem to think he's guilty.
I am honestly wondering why or what was the evidence that most convicted Pell in people's minds?
Maybe I missed something in the news?
I thought it was just one guy's word against another's.

A lot of people think he's guilty based on the testimony of the complainant 

It was the word of the complainant against the word of Pell and several alibis

Who weren't called in the original trial and didn't show up till the appeal.

(April 14, 2020 at 9:49 am)Mr Greene Wrote: Who weren't called in the original trial and didn't show up till the appeal.

Pell's alibis were called to give evidence at the original trial. No one is meant to show up at the appeal

If it wasn't new evidence it wouldn't have merited an appeal, let alone anything higher.

(April 14, 2020 at 8:11 am)Succubus#2 Wrote: That one guy was the one who didn't commit suicide.

Yeah, but that guy never said anything happened.