Pell Loses Appeal

Originally posted by misterS: ↑

The dissenting Judge seemed concerned about a few things, which partly involved the basic premise that the prosecution has to prove an accused did something beyond reasonable doubt, rather than an accused person prove they did not.

In that respect, he indicated that the defence strategy of trying to prove that committing the offences was 'impossible' may have been a forensic error, not being entirely the relevant or appropriate test, notwithstanding that it is effective (when successfully demonstrated...).

He was also not so enamoured of witness A as the other 2 Judges, not so ready to disregard the exculpatory value of the evidence of defence witnesses, nor, indeed, so prepared to give such tremendous weight to the idea that the demeanour of a witness is such a compelling indicator of truthfulness or accurate recall.

He made a valid point that it was pertinent that the other poor boy had actually denied to his Mum that he had been abused, as distinct from never mentioning it (bearing in mind the many obvious reasons he might have lied to his Mum about that).

The actual judgement had a 'general vibe' quality that I didn't like, for reasons I can't quite put my finger on, perhaps exacerbated by its broad introduction.

Perhaps it's ultimately because it contains so little beyond discussion of the single 'witness of truth' that the majority Judges greatly admired, versus the various priests and church functionaries who could largely only attest to what the 'usual practice' was back in the period during which the offences were alleged to have taken place - and not what actually occurred on the relevant occasions - to the extent that the actual occasions were accurately identified.

Overall, I found myself slightly more amenable to the dissenting Judge's legal reasoning. Might need to read it again.

Pell seems a cold fish, living with and supporting a notorious paedophile, fobbing off parents and abrogating responsibility to expose paedophile priests and then having the gall to expect praise for setting up a dubious victims' compo structure. Breathtaking cynicism on display.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if he is guilty, but was a bit surprised this appeal failed. Thought it would be a win on ice-cold legal technicalities, but no, didn't happen.

High Court will likely give leave to appeal, so another round to go.

Expand

Agreed, the more I read of this judgement/s it appears to me that two of the judges, compared to the third, suspended their critical faculties and went with the 'vibe of the thing' i.e. the baying mob.

That said, Pell is his own worst enemy with a profound lack of empathy and lousy interpersonal skills. Little wonder he was not allowed to testify in his own defence.

Whilst he doesn't deserve to be convicted on points of law, he certainly bears substantial moral responsibility as leader of the Australian Church for presiding over the dogs breakfast of dealing with the victims of clerical abuse, and their disgusting abusers. On that basis alone the Vatican should sack him anyway.