If i was defending the church then i wouldn't have condemned the priests that were convicted for child abuse such as Gerald Risdale
No one has provided any foundation for their refusal to accept the ruling of the High Court except for a bitter hatred of the church
With anti-theist prejudice being exposed and lack of reasoning being offered there really is not much left but to reflect on the decision of the High Court
![[Image: EVCKbGcUMAANw_6.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVCKbGcUMAANw_6.jpg)
![[Image: 240eebc474bf608eddb839a8780ce9f4?width=650]](https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/240eebc474bf608eddb839a8780ce9f4?width=650)
![[Image: EU9iczaUwAE2dtm.jpg:large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EU9iczaUwAE2dtm.jpg:large)
Let's read some quotes from the High Court...
"The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place."
"The High Court considered that, while the Court of Appeal majority assessed the evidence of the opportunity witnesses as leaving open the possibility that the complainant's account was correct, their Honours' analysis failed to engage with the question of whether there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt."
"The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents."
The following are statements made by a professional barrister of 35 years Michael McAuley
"With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof"
“The fact of the matter is that all of us have got an interest in the courts operating fairly even with unpopular defenders, and indeed the real test of the justice system is whether unpopular defenders can get justice.”
“It was a very weak case and the Court of Appeal did not have proper regard to the Cardinal’s Counsel’s submissions,”
“The case raises many questions about the professionalism of the Victorian police and serious consideration should be given to establishing a government inquiry into their handling of the matter,”
“The High Court’s unanimous decision to acquit Cardinal Pell will help in remedying the harm his unjust conviction has caused to the national and international reputation of Australia’s justice system,”
“There is now an urgent need to establish inquiries into the Victorian police, the ABC and any other relevant organisation to assess whether they failed to act professionally in investigating and reporting on the allegations against Cardinal Pell.”
“It shouldn’t have been prosecuted. It should not have resulted in a guilty verdict and I think most lawyers thought once it got to the High Court this was the default setting.
I think the question is why such a case was prosecuted, and what damage it did. The Victorian police, who did everything they could during the investigative process to try and promote a conviction have huge questions to answer”
"It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused, and to discharge the burden of proof with evidence. The trial must be conducted and the finders of fact, (the jury or the judge), must come to their verdict regardless of the identity of the accuser or accused and regardless of political or populist pressures or prejudices."
"It is fundamental to the application of justice that respect be paid to these principles by any judicial officer and by any finder of fact. The alternative is a complete corrosion of our system of justice, where any person may be imprisoned or lose their livelihood, on the uncorroborated, or factually improbable, word of another."
“The High Court decision is one which has underscored the most basic and fundamental thread that permeates the ‘web’ of the criminal law – that of the right of every person to a fair trial,”
So despite the prejudices of some hate filled individuals the High Court's decision stands as factually true
Cardinal George Pell is innocent
No one has provided any foundation for their refusal to accept the ruling of the High Court except for a bitter hatred of the church
With anti-theist prejudice being exposed and lack of reasoning being offered there really is not much left but to reflect on the decision of the High Court
Let's read some quotes from the High Court...
"The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place."
"The High Court considered that, while the Court of Appeal majority assessed the evidence of the opportunity witnesses as leaving open the possibility that the complainant's account was correct, their Honours' analysis failed to engage with the question of whether there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt."
"The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents."
The following are statements made by a professional barrister of 35 years Michael McAuley
"With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof"
“The fact of the matter is that all of us have got an interest in the courts operating fairly even with unpopular defenders, and indeed the real test of the justice system is whether unpopular defenders can get justice.”
“It was a very weak case and the Court of Appeal did not have proper regard to the Cardinal’s Counsel’s submissions,”
“The case raises many questions about the professionalism of the Victorian police and serious consideration should be given to establishing a government inquiry into their handling of the matter,”
“The High Court’s unanimous decision to acquit Cardinal Pell will help in remedying the harm his unjust conviction has caused to the national and international reputation of Australia’s justice system,”
“There is now an urgent need to establish inquiries into the Victorian police, the ABC and any other relevant organisation to assess whether they failed to act professionally in investigating and reporting on the allegations against Cardinal Pell.”
“It shouldn’t have been prosecuted. It should not have resulted in a guilty verdict and I think most lawyers thought once it got to the High Court this was the default setting.
I think the question is why such a case was prosecuted, and what damage it did. The Victorian police, who did everything they could during the investigative process to try and promote a conviction have huge questions to answer”
"It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused, and to discharge the burden of proof with evidence. The trial must be conducted and the finders of fact, (the jury or the judge), must come to their verdict regardless of the identity of the accuser or accused and regardless of political or populist pressures or prejudices."
"It is fundamental to the application of justice that respect be paid to these principles by any judicial officer and by any finder of fact. The alternative is a complete corrosion of our system of justice, where any person may be imprisoned or lose their livelihood, on the uncorroborated, or factually improbable, word of another."
“The High Court decision is one which has underscored the most basic and fundamental thread that permeates the ‘web’ of the criminal law – that of the right of every person to a fair trial,”
So despite the prejudices of some hate filled individuals the High Court's decision stands as factually true
Cardinal George Pell is innocent
