Pell's Day of Reckoning, page-135

Hi Scarpa,

IMO that is horrible analysis.

To put the shoe on the other foot, how would you feel if you were convicted of pedophilia based on the testimony of one person, when you did not actually commit the crime?

The concept of reasonable doubt is in place to ensure the lowest amount of innocent people as possible are found guilty. This will sometimes mean that guilty people will also walk free. Ask yourself, are you prepared to send innocent people to jail on the testimony of one person? Personally, and the justice system agrees, I believe that the burden should be on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not the defendant to prove innocence.

Also, the High Court is not accepting Pell's word over the accuser. The High Court said that the evidence/prosecution did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which it CLEARLY didn't. The High Court is not believing the word of one person over another, that is not the measure the law asks for. You are showing that you simply don't understand the law, and are an example why jury trials in such high profile, emotional and divisive cases can result in incorrect and dangerous verdicts.

Cheers!