Doubters’ outcry over Pell verdict disrespectful to jury, legal system
Was George Arthur Pell found guilty, “beyond reasonable doubt”, by a jury of his peers, of orally raping a 13-year-old boy and molesting another? Emphatically, yes.
Despite that undeniable fact, a series of commentators and conservative figures– mostly those who agitated that he never be put on trial in the first place – have sought to cast serious doubt on the verdict.
Those figures include Tony Abbott, who has remained front and centre in public support, despite Pell's conviction.
One of the doubters' key thrusts is that Pell has been found guilty because he is such a high figure in the Catholic Church, and is being made to pay for its manifest sins, rather his own.
To those commentators, let me ask one quick question: what would have been your reaction if Pell had been found innocent and, in my column, I had written, “Yeah well, I know this man, and I’ve looked at the trial transcripts, and I think he is guilty anyway.”
Can you imagine?
As to rest of the commentary, it is extraordinarily disrespectful to the jury members who, after weighing all the evidence, listening to all the testimony, came to the conclusion that he was guilty.
More
https://www.smh.com.au/national/doubters-outcry-over-pell-verdict-disrespectful-to-jury-legal-system-20190301-p51154.html