Michael Smith "News" from a month ago. Again. (I'm thinking Kathy Jackson now probably regrets letting him use the granny flat out the back when he was down on his luck.)
Here's the difference in the cases of George Pell and Bill Shorten.
In the Pell case a complaint was made, which was investigated. Enough evidence was compiled to have a chance to convict. So it proceeded to prosecution. A judge convicted the paedophile Pell. Pell's highly paid legal team took it to the Appeals Court where the conviction was upheld. The convicted paedophile is now appealing to the High Court, and powerful friends in politics and the media continue to put pressure on the court system to release the paedophile. So he has had every opportunity to prove his innocence, but failed at every stage.
In Bill Shorten's case, a complaint was made, which was investigated. Not enough credible evidence was compiled to have a chance to convict. So it didn't proceed to prosecution. He has no case to answer.
I don't like Bill Shorten or George Pell. Wouldn't have been too fussed if the situation was reversed. But the courts have made their decision.
