"Being innocent worked real well with Cardinal Pell and President Trump."
Sarcasm noted and yeah, it did actually. ;-) President Trump wasn't convicted of anything. Likewise. Cardinal Pell's conviction was overturned. So being innnocent worked real well for them both.
Neither man was charged with possessing or transferring illegal pornography, either.
Trial delays of "rioters" are not convictions, nor are their cases related to possessing or transferring illegal pornography.
"I'm concerned about WHO is responsible and why....which I said earlier. That will determine if it's a good faith, comprehensive, in-depth investigation."
That's a Genetic Fallacy. The comprehensiveness or depth of the investigation is not automatically dependent on who does it. Both sides of a bias have equally valid reasons for doing an extremely in-depth investigation. Those seeking to clear a man will try to find every piece of evidence in his defense. Those seeking to convict will look for anything that will help convict him (even things not directly related to the charges).
"Obviously the authorities KNOW how to do a proper investigation. The question in my mind is whether it will be done that way."
If they don't then they will look exceedingly stupid when defense counsel points out all their procedural errors to the jury.
Let's remember, since you keep raising Cardinal Pell. This is Murrica, not Aussie-Land. Our court system works a bit differently and Cardinal Pell wasn't charged with possessing or transferring illegal pornography..
"The process was clearly biased against him. It was felt he should suffer for the sins of wayward immoral priests, even if he were innocent."
Yes, it was. However, Cardinal Pell's case ultimately came down to the credibility of the witnesses and the plausibility of what they claimed happened in an very unlikely amount of time.
As you correctly noted, the court was punishing Pell for the behavior of immoral priests, all on the basis of a similar, if unproven (and ultimately unprovable) case.
None of that applies here. This will be a technically-focused case. Evidence will be based on fact, not memories. Contrary to the wishful thinking of either side, it's near-impossible to "set up" or frame an innocent person in a case like this.
It's entirely possible to lure and entrap someone online who predisposed to such vices, but innocent people do not venture into the parts of the internet where such material exists. They do not seek out the online venues where it is traded, meaning they don't interract with the vermin who offer it (many of which are law-enforcement).
"The same injustices could happen to anyone right now, given the present leftist climate now rife in the U.S. and the widespread suppression of exculpatory evidence."
You seem to keep forgetting Cardinal Pell wasn't convicted by a US court. ;-)
So, no, the same injustices that happened within the Australian legal system couldn't "happen to anyone right now" if they aren't subject to the Australian legal system.