He wasn't on trial for this alleged act. We can't and don't want a system where people are convicted purely on accusations. That's what happened in Stalinist times.
The truth is that Pell has been convicted on the basis of the testimony of one person. The other alleged victim never made a complaint to police.
There is no forensic evidence, no physical evidence and no corroborating eye witnesses.
How can that possibly be beyond a reasonable doubt?
Despite my repulsion for the bloke and the act he's been convicted of, if I was on that jury there is no way I would have found him guilty.
Not on the say so of one person. No matter how compelling their testimony.
How can you take the word of one over another, when there is absolutely no other evidence?
