Pell Loses Appeal, page-134

Good article here. The dissenting judge is the one who is the most respected for his intellect and experience.
Surely you can't fairly convict someone with zero corroborating evidence.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/08/the-pell-appeal-why-good-process-makes-us-a-better-society/


Weinberg JA considered that ‘the complainant’s allegations against the applicant were, to one degree or another, implausible. In the case of the second incident, even that is an understatement’. If this is correct, then these guilty verdicts appear to have been reached on the proverbial ‘he said’ but with holes you could drive a road-train through. Weinberg JA ultimately found that there was a ‘significant possibility’ that Pell may not have committed these offences, and as such, ‘the convictions could not be permitted to stand’. The term ‘significant possibility’ is a big stick considering the burden of proof is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.