Although Pell was apparently motivated not by compassion for victims, but by a desire to protect the treasure and reputation of the church
I've seen that kind of assertion before but I haven't seen any evidence to support it. It may be true. It is, however, the case that part of the Melbourne Response was the appointment of an independent commissioner to investigate cases, the first such appointee upholding 97% of cases. It also led to ex gratia payments being made to alleged victims, although I sympathise with complaints that these were insufficiently generous. There was also a counselling and support service (Carelink), although I know there was widespread criticism that the support for victims was inadequate and that the whole approach was too legalistic.
Looking at it from the UK, the best source of evidence seems to be Case Study 16 from the Royal Commission. However, that doesn't seem to draw any conclusions. So my view is that, although I can clearly state that this was the first attempt to do anything to investigate complaints of child sex abuse and compensate victims, I am not in a position to comment on Pell's motives nor the adequacy of the Melbourne Response. The full report of the Royal Commission may give a better view.
The jury convicted him because they believed the victim's testimony
Indeed. All reports say that the complainant came across as very credible, despite the fact that he changed his story after the committal hearing to deal with the fact that parts of his original version of events were physically impossible. Of course, the change does not necessarily mean he was lying but it does reduce his credibility. The High Court and one of the Victoria Supreme Court judges were of the view that, however credible the complainant, that didn't get past the fact that the events he described were highly improbable.
Dealing with historic allegations of child abuse is very difficult. The complainant's evidence is likely to be unsupported and the passage of time may mean that their recall of events is imperfect. Their story may, therefore, be inconsistent and change over time, which reduces their credibility.
The defendant is also at a disadvantage. If the allegations are made shortly after the event an innocent defendant will be far better placed to say where they were and what they were doing at the time of the alleged event, and finding witnesses who can support their version of events will be much easier. How many of us could recall where we were and what we were doing at a particular time on a particular date more than 20 years ago and find witnesses to prove it?
I note that the trial judge in this particular case noted that, before the trial, there was a witch hunt or lynch mob mentality in relation to Pell and that, even before this, he was a publicly vilified figure in some sections of the community. This, of course, significantly increases the chances of a miscarriage of justice as the jury will have been exposed to this. Some of the posts on this thread seem to show the same mentality with posters who believe Pell must be guilty and will disregard any evidence to the contrary.
I don't know whether or not he is guilty. However, having read both the Supreme Court judgement and the judgement in his latest appeal, my view is that he should never have been convicted. There simply wasn't the evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.