Originally posted by KazetNagorraNobody rational would bet on a certainty. Odds only become relevant when there is doubt.
[b]I don't know the case, how am I supposed to judge whether or not the evidence is strong enough for a conviction? Unlike you, I don't assume the guy is guilty just because he's a Catholic.
(Just helping out.)
Much as I dislike George Pell and everything he stands for, I have a feeling this case may get thrown out for lack of evidence. Pell was one of the bigshots who covered up all the child abuse reports and quietly shuffled the offending priests off to the fresh meat available in other parishes, but what he's been charged with is stuff reported only recently, long after the Royal Commission found no reason to charge him. So if he does "get off" it won't have anything to do with the Vatican, who have so far stayed out of the matter. Australia isn't run by religious organisations, this isn't the US.
Originally posted by KewpieSo long as you are either rich or well connected you have virtually nothing to fear from the courts.
Much as I dislike George Pell and everything he stands for, I have a feeling this case may get thrown out for lack of evidence. Pell was one of the bigshots who covered up all the child abuse reports and quietly shuffled the offending priests off to the fresh meat available in other parishes, but what he's been charged with is stuff reported only recently, l ...[text shortened]... ar stayed out of the matter. Australia isn't run by religious organisations, this isn't the US.