I'm troubled by the conviction of Cardinal George Pell for child sexual abuse, on the basis just of a single accusation, unsupported by evidence. Another example showing few people are concerned about men's legal rights?

This has been the big news item in Australia today, because a court just lifted the suppression order preventing any media reporting on Pell's conviction in December:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/cardinal-george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse-20181214-p50m86.html

I'm an atheist who does not care for the Catholic church at all and trusts it even less. Pell is an unlikable character and an unsympathetic defendant. But I'm of the view that it's as important to defend the legal rights of people you dislike and disagree with as it is to defend the legal rights of your friends & allies.

I've been reading up on this case, and some of the details concern me:

1. Pell was convicted based on just the testimony of a single accuser. There was no supporting evidence at all.
2. The accusation was that Pell sexually abused two boys together. The other boy died as an adult in 2014 (the crime was alleged to have occurred 22 years ago, when he was 13), but while he was alive he always denied his friend's accusation.
3. This was the second trial of Pell on these charges. the first trial ended after the jury was discharged for failing to reach a verdict.

Maybe Pell is guilty, I certainly don't know. But this seems like a very flimsy basis on which to find the guy guilty, brand him a pedophile and jail him for possibly the rest of his life.

I've seen so many seemingly similar trials of men accused of raping women which were later revealed as false accusations and this trial seems to have all the same elements at play - including an enraged mob, baying for the accused man's blood.