Anyone remotely accustomed to the Law here in Australia would tell you the initial guilty verdict was flawed. Convictions are rarely upheld based on unsubstantiated evidence. Convictions rely on the premise of "reasonable doubt". I said so from day one. I don't particularly care for the Catholic Church or Religion but I totally believed that the conviction was unsafe because it was one persons word against another, and the only other witness denied it ever occured, even stating that he was with Pell the whole time. Also, the deceased witness similarly denied it occured.
Not sure why ALP bloggers are going nuts over this. Maybe they have little to add to our economic woes and prefer to take down people in authority like some sort of prize catch.
But our dear ALP bloggers should contemplate the evidence of one Young Labor member who claims to have been raped at a Young Labor Youth Conference. You should stop squeeling about Pell and ask yourself why it's ok to politicise the Pell trial yet try to cover up the complaints against Shorten. If anyone on the left side of politics is happy today I'd say its Bill. There will need to be corroborating evidence in the case against him now, and that will not happen. So breath easy commrades.
