Pell and he was convicted by a jury of his peers after extensive efforts were made to ensure the fairness and integrity of his trial. I doubt you were in the court, so it is a little arrogant to second guess the jury. If you dismiss victim testimony then very few sex offenders would ever be convicted.
When a jury actually listens to evidence they weigh up the believability of the witnesses. When a victim can for example explain the incident pretty clearly and the defendant cannot explain the incident, or is cagey in their answers, than the jury do not have to consider these as equally valuable accounts.
The only evidence that has been raised supporting Pell's account is evidence that it would have been "impossible" because of the usual events and movements after a service. The jury rejected that after hearing counter arguments from the persecutor and the appeals court (by majority) said it was reasonable for them to do so. No one has said they were "with him and it didn't happen", as you've claimed. The justices were all equally qualified to hear the appeal.
Yes, the high court will ultimately determine the outcome. Although it should be noted that the high court has been more likely to side with juries in historical sexual abuse case than the Victorian Court of Appeals has, so it doesn't look hopeful for Pell.
I honestly have no idea if he did it. Just like I have no idea if any criminal accused did what they are accused of doing. I do know it is (extremely) rare for victims of sexually based crimes to make up their claim and go through the legal process. I also know that a jury, twelve ordinary people, listened to both sides make their case and came to a unanimous decision that they had no doubt he did it. A group of legal experts then listened to arguments on the conduct of the trial and ruled that it was conducted reasonably and legally.
If people aren't satisfied with that it has a lot less to do with Pell's innocence and guilt and more to do with barracking for your team.
As for Gillard, if I was her I'd spend the rest of my life bringing defamation proceedings against people like yourself and asking you to back up your smears in court. She would be a very wealthy women when all the rulings added up.
Before you use the usual troll "truth" defence argument remember that needs to be truth as provable with evidence admissible in court. It is very easy to make a case sound solid on a blog, or Internet forum, but it is much harder to make that case in court.
You seem to place more faith in internet smears and partisan bloggers than a properly conducted trial where extraordinary measures were taken to ensure a fair trial. I think that probably says more about your political allegiance than the merits of the respective accusations.
