Uh huh Jayne. I guess time will tell who is right here.

Uh huh Jayne. I guess time will tell who is right here.

Not necessarily.  We may never find out the truth.

But your main argument is that you don't think that a unanimous jury could be wrong.  I think your trust in juries in misplaced.
Here in Canada, we experienced the situation of infamous abortionist Henry Morgentaler.  Back in 70s, when abortion was illegal here, he was brought to trial 3 times for breaking the law against abortion.  There is no question that he did so, but on 3 different occasions, three different juries found him not guilty.  Jury decisions are far from infallible.

No, my main argument is that what you think you know (and are basing your "logical assessment" on) is probably not the whole story. 

There may be more to the story, but, as I said, it is hard to imagine anything that could make these allegations plausible.  Plus, another jury already tried this case and presumably did hear the whole story.  They did not find him guilty.

It's very likely that Pell is guilty of many other crimes which weren't part of this trial.  

It is possible that somehow the prosecutors at the second trial were able to convince the jury of this. In such circuмstances, a jury might find a person guilty even when the evidence does not support it.  But they should not have.  The jury was not supposed to decide whether Pell is a predator in general, but whether he was guilty of the specific crime that he was charged with.  If that is what happened it means the legal system is broken.

My experience as a juror has shown me that most folks selected as a juror take the job seriously and impartially...as they should.  Given this jury deliberated for days, it sounds to me that they did the same.

Added:  Also, from what I have read, under Victorian law, a 11-1 verdict would have convicted him too.  And yet, the jury came back unanimous.

Maybe, but people are wrongly convicted all the time.  That's just a fact.  And there is a heavy prejudice against the Catholic Church out there.

Nadir, it seems that you are certain that this man is innocent.  I provided a link of an article that seemed to me to handle the situation in a balanced way.  In addition, the reporter answering the questions was also a reporter that was in attendance throughout the whole process and I don't think that was the case of any of the other reports provided in this thread up to that point.  

Have you ever been a juror on a criminal jury trial (or any other kind of trial)?  I have.  An unanimous decision between 12 people is very difficult to attain.  The fact that this decision was unanimous holds a lot of weight in my book.  

2Vermont, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about his guilt or innocence, and about what you see as the “balanced way” said writer presents the “facts”.
.
But you are right in that my firm opinion is (I am certain) that Cdl Pell is innocent, that the case for a guilty verdict is flimsy to say the least and, in the view of most Australians that I have heard comment, there has been a miscarriage of justice.
.
As for the reporter you quoted, I have never heard of her, and so I know nothing about her, and when I searched what came up is a few articles the majority being her writings on Cdl Pell’s trial.
Her clever interview style of writing is a series of her learned OPINIONS in answer to her own questions she has posed to herself. Whether or not she sat through the whole shebang is largely irrelevant and there is no reason to believe that sitting through the whole process will render her honest.

This whole sɛҳuąƖ abuse scandal that has gone on for so long, has clarified for me it's origins and intentions.
The infiltration of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and Vll corrupting the seminaries and Sacramental rites have always had one intention- to destroy the faith of the laity, the Priesthood,  and subsequently Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament so that the antichrist spirit  can reign without the any remnant of Christ to hinder it. This is the priority, the destruction of the Church- even before any radical political upheavals, wars , fake  news and cultural inversions (which of course are one and the same "movement" as the destroyers of the Church).
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity/ pederasty in the  NO Priesthood is rampant and sickeningly shameful, but the stage is now set to incriminate any priest at any time with any unsubstantiated accusation, and the target  of course is NOT to rid itself of homo/Marxists priests in the Consiliar Church, but to rid itself of conservative and faithful "priests" who resist the  prevailing "anti-doctrine"  and serve to muddy the waters for the revolution. They must be destroyed, and at the very least silenced and marginalized. They are targeted now.
In Pennsylvania, it only took an accusation, not a conviction to make it into AG ((Shapiro's)) Hall of Shame. Out of 300 reported abusers, most of them were dead ( unable to defend themselves) and there was only ONE conviction of abuse in the entire named group of Priests- Yet it spawned a country/statewide witchhunt ( Yes it's not just Trump) and international infamy for the NO Priesthood. ( and truly, all Priests- even our own have to trudge through the cesspool of accusations and shame. The world, has the power and will paint ALL with the same brush- because they can). Of course we are targeted.
As a person who has had some experience with jury and jury selection, I know how easy it is to stack a jury , especially in a high profile case that has huge implications and impact to morality and culture- our pro-life cases NEVER won in a jury trial. Was it because our side wasn't factual and honest? No because the juries were carefully indoctrinated with what the Judge would allow into evidence, and our lawyers were unable to truly to present our case with the Judge's restrictions. Most judges did not allow our lawyers to use the word "abortion" and the juries were instructed to ignore all of our pertinent facts. It all came down to whether we committed trespass -lol. They have complete control of the system when they need to use it. If anyone gets put in the position of Judge or prosecutor, rest assured they know the rules and abide by them, or they will be defamed and tossed-out as well.
I consider myself a 'Resistance" member, and I have no love for the Consiliar counterfeit highjackers, but I do hate the railroading of an innocent man and know how easily it can happen and why.
I put my money on Cardinal Pell entirely because I don't think he is ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pederast, and was truly trying to expose the Vll banking/laundering system. To me he is a victim of Francis' lavender Cabal who projects their filth onto anyone who exposes or disagrees with them. The fix is in.