Paradoxically, he's the very best "scapegoat" since his conviction was overturned and in a manner that highlights an unfair presentation of the evidence with a clear intent to railroad an unjust conviction.

Pell's appeal wasn't based on a tacit admission of the accusation with, say, a claim the evidence itself wasn't lawfully gathered. Instead, his team argued the conviction was based on the court seeing only what it wanted to see, namely the unlikely claims of the prosecution's witness.

Because his trial was so high-profile, so public (with the media and, sorry to say the Church's complicity), he represents every falsely accused priest.