A great many people worldwide share her opinion on the questions she has drawn attention to. The jury were required to consider instruction from the judge prior to deliberating their verdict. Such is a judge's prerogative but can often put a jury to confusion whereby their verdict is contrary to a verdict they may have otherwise determined if doing so purely on proven evidence before them.

On rare occasions juries have been known to unwittingly get their verdict wrong only to have it overturned by the High Court when appealed. Such paves the way to review anything in the way of evidence that was missed, construed or unavailable, in all fairness to the one on trial, this case the Cardinal. An appeal is a passage of request.

Now, this doesn't mean the jury were at fault for they must determine their decisions on pure evidence but rather truthful evidence only. Couple this with judicial instruction and they are left to run with this, it being, all they have to go on.

It's a tremendous responsibility for them to find themselves chosen to sit in judgement of another let alone a Cardinal.

At that time to reinforce this vision of accusation when the Cardinal, at that time, was the Bishop in authority. It was made to appear to smack of complete disregard when Pell accompanied the disgraced priest paedophile to his day in court.

To be fair, no mention was allowed for the possibility that Pell, in his position of authority, may well have been expected to do so, when he may well have loathed being seen in public having to do so.

A right of appeal may well have the way to a right to be believed keeping in mind the Cardinal has vigorously maintained his innocence all along never once wavering. The High Court may well quash this verdict either dismissing it altogether freeing the Cardinal or request a retrial. This case is far from over. There is a saying those who tell lies are required to have a vivid memory for they have been known to trip themselves up while painting the finger of accusation at another.

However, abuse did occur and must be accepted, but to bring down someone to justify other sinful clergy disgraceful behaviour must be reckoned with in this appeal.

Australian farmers need a fair go, with irrigation water and droughts. In regards to farming, farmers they come in different areas of expertise and farmers are not manufactured, they are born with the gift to love the land, turning the soil to grow a crop and seeing a calf or sheep being born and today's governments are making it harder for farmers to farm. Drought is a natural occurrence. It comes along every few years to make things hard for dry area farmers to survive, it it does not rain. 

It is not the farmers fault, but today's governments on both sides of the fence that decided in 2013 drought is no longer declared a natural disaster and farmers find themselves in trouble with the law if they clear the land to prevent bushfires.

Australia has many national parks and state forests where governments are in control to look after them, but do they? And in times of drought the biggest fear when a farmer has his boundary alongside a national park is fire. Governments do not allow farmers access to the national parks where once cattle were allowed to graze for short periods to prevent bushfires and our native animals were protected from bushfires.

My friend Donald from Barellan told me a story that there were three paddocks, the one in the middle of the three paddocks had control grazing, the outer paddocks had long grass, a fire came along and burnt out the outer paddocks and left the middle one intact. Politicians do they listen to the people who made a living doing what they do best, putting food on the table for all?