How do those words indicate guilt of molesting boys? It shows he handled a complaint poorly- this when “Pell was a junior priest with no authority in disciplinary matters, nor any formal charge to inquire into pedophilic infractions.”
You might try reading the whole article. Poor judgment and going by the laws of the time regarding reporting of allegations is not proof of guilt.
Twelve people heard the evidence that Pell was directly involved in child molestation at the cathedral in Melbourne and they were sufficiently convinced of his guilt that they found him guilty.
Next year in the spring he’ll be tried for the offences that are alleged to have taken place at a swimming pool in Ballarat. Maybe that jury may see things differently.
In any case he’s been found guilty and is now a convicted sex offender.