Interesting perspective. I don’t claim to know 100% whether he was guilty or railroaded. My hunch, which is nothing more than a hunch and based on what little of know of the case as well as relevant Q drops, is that he was probably guilty. But I’m willing to be convinced otherwise if the evidence points in that direction.
From another site, poster "Bogdan the Aussie" over on Instapundit:
Yes, the charges against him were completely false. That's why the Australian Supreme Court overturned original "conviction" by 7 to 0. There was only one witness who was a drug addict and was obviously persuaded by the left to lodge the false testimony while the other was already dead and he denied that he was raped or molested by Pell. The story of Cardinal Pell's persecution is very long and dates many years back. I was following that almost from the very beginning and it was a stalinist style persecution of a noble and an innocent man. Please, watch this if you have a bit of a patience: