and in answer...

..to the anonymous correspondent who wrote in to this blog:
 Dear Sir, No - the whole point about the Cardinal  Pell case is that the jury - and all of us -  must  not leave the facts aside and talk only about child abuse affecting various families, or about the Church, or about our feelings on these or related matters. We must, on the contrary, stick to examining the facts alleged about a particular event at a particular time. That is what a court is asked to do, and all concerned must remove all other considerations from their minds. So: was the Cardinal in the sacristy at the time alleged or was he, as witnesses have stated, in a procession walking through the crowded  cathedral and then greeting people outside?   How did the man who now makes the allegation explain his ability to go to his place in choir, unhurt, and sing as if nothing had happened? Why, if attacked as described, did he not shout or scream for help, especially as there were a large number of people nearby? Why did his friend not do so? These are among the many questions.

Our entire justice system rests on the understanding that the facts of a case must be established, on evidence given and examined. Whatever your opinions about a man's work or about events in the news, or about religion or race or nationality, you must leave these aside as you concentrate on listening to the information about the incident and establishing what occurred.

I am honestly appalled - and slightly frightened - by the realisation that in Australia today this is not the common understanding of what a court should do.