The Pell verdict

was expected of course. Like many other people in Downunder I have been aware of it since December but I would have broken the law if I had commented publicly on it. 
I have a number of things I want to say here and I am well aware that they might not make me popular.
The first is this. The legal process is not yet finished. We have been informed that there will be an appeal. That may or may not succeed.
The second is this. The media and many others who have commented on the issue made up their minds long before the case even went to court that the defendant was guilty as charged. What is more they claimed he was guilty of everything he was accused of.
The third is this. Some charges against the defendant were thrown out. They were thrown out because the evidence was not there. The known facts showed there was not just no reasonable chance of a conviction but no chance at all. 
The fourth is this. The jury was under immense pressure to find the defendant guilty. The facts of the case in this instance were secondary to "getting" someone. The first trial failed because, it was said, the jury could not reach a verdict. The reality is that they came dangerously close to acquitting the defendant. I say "dangerously" because such an outcome would have been unacceptable.
Nobody wants to talk about these things. I tried, carefully and gently, to point this out to someone yesterday and I got accused of "supporting child sexual abuse". Nothing could be further from the truth. As a victim of it myself I am all too well aware of the harm it can cause.  I do not for one moment want to suggest that someone who has been subjected to it has not been harmed by it.
All evidence in such cases has to be treated with extreme caution. Any evidence given after forty years is tainted. People may not be lying but the truth, as they remember it, may not be what actually happened. Those claiming to be victims have too much to lose to even question to themselves the validity of their claims. The slightest touch given in sympathy can be remembered as violent assault when you turn against someone.
But, the verdict in this case may not be safe. We have to wait the outcome of the appeals process to know the answer to that.
There are other problems too. This morning's paper has made an enormous fuss about the case. That was only to be expected - but much of what they have to say is wrong. They are, quite deliberately, trying to ensure that any appeals process will fail. They are putting pressure on the judiciary to retain the verdict. It matters not to them whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. They want him to be guilty. They are also putting pressure on a religious organisation and those who run it. It matters not to them that this also puts pressure on all those who attend churches or synagogues or mosques or simply believe in a higher being.  It is telling them - stop believing because this is the sort of thing that happens when you believe. 
That's wrong. It's frightening. History shows humans have a need to believe in something be it Christianity, Communism, Confucianism or something else.