Observers have noted that allegations against Pell fit none of those patterns.
Pell was convicted of sexually assaulting the victim twice: one encounter an incidence of groping in a hallway, the other, at which the other boy was present, was said to take place after a 10:30 Mass in Melbourne's cathedral.
Pell is supposed to have managed to abuse the boys simultaneously, while still vested from Mass - something witnesses testified would have been nearly physically impossible for him to do. The event was said to have taken place in a public space at its most crowded time. Pell was shown to have rarely been in that place during the time frame alleged - during the six month window identified by the prosecution, Pell celebrated the 10:30 Mass only twice.
The cardinal is facing no other criminal charges. The attack appears to have been spontaneous, not preceded by any kind of grooming relationship. It is not alleged by experts to conform to any obvious pattern of predatory behavior.
Pell's defence lawyer made the observation that "only a madman" would attempt to do what Pell has been convicted of doing in the time and place he was found to have done it.
As Judge Peter Kidd noted during this week's bail hearing, there is no evidence that Pell is a madman.
While these factors were presented in court, they seem not to have overly influenced the jury.
But many commentators, including otherwise implacable critics of the cardinal, have been far less convinced by the evidence against him.
Some have questioned whether Pell's public stature in Australia impacted his trial. The cardinal has been the subject of decades of close media scrutiny and criticism, not least for taking unflinchingly conservative Catholic positions in highly secularized society, and as the face of a Church synonymous with an egregious clerical sexual abuse crisis.
Anger in Australia over clerical sexual abuse is pervasive. Last year another archbishop was convicted of abuse related charges, only to be acquitted on appeal when a judge decided that anti-Catholic sentiment had played a role in his trial. Whether that was true in Pell's case is now a subject of fierce debate.
Melbourne legal expert Jeremy Gans told The Guardian last week that because there was only one key witness, there is a good chance Pell's appeal will succeed. But the debate around Pell's conviction raises a question germane to a broader set of issues: In the climate of our time, what means are there -- what will is there -- to ensure that those accused of sexual abuse receive a fair trial on the merits of the evidence?
That question unanswered, Pell and his lawyers are appealing for justice. So too are victims of sexual abuse. In a changing culture, courts will have to find a way to do justice for them both.