The evidence does look a little flimsy to get a guilty verdict for the 5 charges named for what i understand.
I served on a 6wk paedo priest trial about 5-6yrs ago, some would know the case well if i gave some hints. The priest in question was an evil predator but not all the chargers (we dealt with about 14) were crystal clear for a guilty verdict although we ended up making him guilty on those charges anyway. We believed some of the victims did not present well and it was suggested they were in it for compensation etc. However, there was a clear weight of numbers involving victims and their stories that was just too compelling not to believe. Again, the priest involved was evil and we had no doubt he was guilty on the majority of the charges. As it also turned out, he was already convicted on some charges previously and was already in jail (obviously we weren't suppose to know that....nudge nudge wink wink internet anyone).
Getting back to the Pell case, personally, I didn't like the look of the guy from when i first time I came across him...... I even don't like going into a church even though my kids have to for school (i wait outside) and i'm pretty much an agnostic now. That said, from what i have read, I think the word of one kid and no other witnesses is a little strange that a jury came back overwhelminly with a guilty verdict for Pell.
