In the end, just as in the beginning, this was a case about two little boys.

Two 13-year-old choristers from humble backgrounds, who received scholarships to an expensive Catholic school because they could sing their little hearts out.

Two boys whose childhoods, a court has again found, were stolen from them in 1996 by a man who was supposed to represent all that was good in the world: the then Archbishop of Melbourne.

Neither chorister was in court this brisk Melbourne morning.

One succumbed in 2014 to the heroin addiction that overwhelmed him from the age of 14 — the year after the event that changed their lives.

He was only 31 when he died.

The other choirboy remained silent about what George Pell did to them until his friend's death.

Then, four years ago, with private and resolute determination, he told his truth to Victoria Police.

On Wednesday, beamed to the world through a scratchy feed from a Supreme Court building several blocks away from where the boy was orally raped at St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne, two judges of the Victorian Court of Appeal agreed with a jury of 12 that this young man was a truth-teller.

That finding meant Cardinal George Pell's appeal was dismissed.

The world's third most-senior Catholic will return to prison.

George Pell arrived at the Supreme Court of Victoria in a prison van just before 8:30am. ( AAP: Julian Smith )

'Someone who was telling the truth'

"Throughout his evidence, [the complainant, known only to the court as 'J'] came across as someone who was telling the truth," Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Chris Maxwell found in their majority judgment.

"He did not seek to embellish his evidence or tailor it in a manner favourable to the prosecution."

As the only journalist who has met J and other complainants against George Pell, and who wrote about these allegations in my book, Cardinal, The Rise and Fall of George Pell, I do not speak for J as he is fiercely private.

But I can comfortably say that their Honours' finding is not a surprise to me.

I have never had any reason to believe that J is not telling the truth.

Indeed, I have often said I would defy anyone who had met him to find any reason why this young man would invent this story and to go through what has been a four-year ordeal through the police investigation and a court case.

He released a statement on Wednesday through his lawyer, Dr Viv Waller, who acted pro bono for him during this process.

"The journey has taken me to places that, in my darkest moments, I feared I would not return from," J wrote.

"The justice machine rolls on, with all of its processes and punditry, almost forgetting about the people at the heart of the matter."

It was a characteristically measured statement, too, with J saying he appreciated that the criminal process had afforded Pell "every opportunity to challenge the charges and every opportunity to be heard".

"I am glad he has had the best legal representation that money can buy. There are lots of checks and balances in the criminal justice system."

George Pell was taken from court back to prison after the hearing. ( AAP: James Ross )

The trauma can't be underestimated

It's the ultimate David and Goliath tale of a young man who never sought fame, just wanted justice, against a well-resourced defendant who has for years cultivated and been supported by the powerful.

Imagine taking on Cardinal George Pell: the third most senior person in the worldwide Catholic Church. A man supported by two former prime ministers who didn't spend a minute in court, didn't hear or read a word of your evidence and yet nonetheless, by implication, branded you a liar.

The trauma and anxiety for all involved — J, the family of his dead friend, the entire community of people who have survived industrial-scale abuse by Catholic clergy in this country — cannot be underestimated.

As someone who became a witness in this case — I was cross-examined for a full day by Pell's combative QC, Robert Richter — I can attest that this process is brutal and one you would be mad to seek out for any other reason than that you spoke the truth.

And I am not, like J, a child rape survivor.

I am not, like J, grieving a friend who was also abused by a powerful man the day I was raped.

I am not, like J, someone who has been falsely accused of trying to do this for my own personal gain.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," J said in his statement about claims he was somehow after compensation.

"I have risked my privacy, my health, my wellbeing and my family.

"I have not instructed any solicitor in relation to a claim for compensation.

"This is not about money and it never has been."

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 1 minute 21 seconds 1 m 21 s Victorian Chief Justice says Pell "is not to be made a scapegoat"

The gaping hole left by abuse

It's a relief to the family left behind by J's chorister friend, known to the court as R.

R's father, who wept tears of relief in the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, is taking civil action.

His mother is making peace with it all.

Mother's intuition had twice prompted her to ask her son if he had been "interfered with", but the boy said no.

That's not a surprise. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found it took victims of Catholic clergy an average of 33.3 years to come forward — R was well inside that time frame when his addiction took him from his mum's life.

She's left with the gaping hole in her heart her son left behind and the acceptance that justice, of some sort, has been served.

Loading...

This isn't about a culture war

The pundits who adopted this case as the latest episode in their culture war — arguing that it was somehow a leftist conspiracy against a conservative Catholic who espoused a muscular conception of the faith — will no doubt continue.

They will be comforted by the dissenting opinion of Justice Mark Weinberg, who pointed to some inconsistencies and inclinations by J, he said, to embellish aspects of his account.

Again, as someone who has been a witness in this case, I cannot begin to imagine how difficult it is to recall the finer details of an episode that happened when I was just 13 years old — where I was in the room, what people were wearing, what time of year it was, how, exactly, the-then Archbishop lifted his famed robes to sexually assault me.

In my own evidence, at times I struggled to recall things that had happened just two years before when I had been investigating the claims that George Pell had betrayed the trust of children. As is his legal right, the Cardinal will undoubtedly appeal to the High Court — although he has limited grounds for doing so and may not be granted leave by their Honours.

The culture war will inevitably roll on, with the pundits shouting at whoever will listen.

But what must be remembered is that this case is not about ideology, nor different strands of Catholicism, nor a man who was a lightning rod for dissent in his Church.

This case was about child protection.

Today, child protection won.