[Campion]

The jurors probably figured that if Pell didn’t do this particular crime, there’s no way he could have held that position as long as he did and not at the very minimum aided and abetted a whole lot of other such crimes.

Wow, so you believe in "justice" on the principle of "even if you're innocent of this offense, you're probably guilty of a lot of others, so we'll punish you just the same"?

Last time I checked, the *legal* framework required "guilt [of the offenses *charged under the indictment*] beyond a reasonable doubt," not "well, you've got it coming anyway, so you're toast".

You would not want to be judged by a jury like that, I'll wager.

[thoughtomator]

> Wow, so you believe

No, I don't. And therefore your entire package of accusatory assumption is completely wrong. I expect an apology forthwith.