
Tas
Premium Platinum








- Dec 23, 2002
- 63,204
- 63,533
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
Pell's accuser gave evidence under oath and he was found guilty by a jury, then the highest court in Victoria upheld the verdict.
That counts far more for me than what rich peoples court in Canberra said.
Amy won't give evidence and Clarko isn't being tried at a criminal court.
Very different situations.
You are getting caught up by the specifics of the case, it wasn't the point I was making. I am not comparing the two cases. I am comparing that people will develop a bias based on what they have absorbed and will use different justifications for taking a position. What you have proved is how pointless legal action will be in terms of changing someone's mind or clearing your name. Because you don't believe Pell is innocent despite a not guilty verdict in the highest court of appeal. The lesser court verdicts are null and void, the High Court's ruling was the jury was too biased to do the duty they had pledged to do, so what hope do you have of convincing regular punters?
Clarkson already addressed it in a statement: "The further recent publication of purported extracts from the report means I now have grave concerns that any chance of a fair process and just outcome have been seriously undermined, if not irrevocably corrupted."
I think now that everyone has lawyered up, the public comments have stopped, if the outcome of the investigation allows him to keep coaching and it doesn't string him up, I think he and Fagan will get on with life.
The people who think he is guilty now, will think it regardless of the result of legal action.