Understand - my personal position is not Cardinal Pell is innocent - I am not in a position to judge that. But I do not believe he received a fair trial - two trial conducted in secret (the second after the first ended in a hung jury) where we are still not allowed to see the evidence of the alleged victim, the only witness to the supposed crime, where no evidence exists except that testimony. And there's so much more going on as well.
I’m with you on this. I am unsurprised at the 2-1 decision. I think they want it to go all the way to the high court. It worries me. The possibility that this case could lower the burden of proof for abuse cases is right up there and I believe high on the agenda of the left.
The behavior of abruptly forcing oral sex from an adolescent boy is quite peculiar.
It is not something that would happen without any previous history.
Where are Cardinal Pell’s numerous previous lovers, who would validate this unusual predilection?
Does no one question the assertions?
From what I read, the ABC implied a history, but completely failed to come up with any other credible witnesses.
Am I wrong about that?