Having not been in the Court, and therefore not privy to all of the evidence, I can't make a judgement about the jury's verdict.

There were two juries; the first one couldn't reach a verdict and was dismissed.

I agree with you about Richter, he's an incredibly clever lawyer and wouldn't have wanted his client on the stand - although it's not uncommon for the accused person to not testify at all.

If an accused will not actively defend himself, what does this imply? Let's take just one example:- it was claimed by the defence that Pell could not have been in the Sacristy alone because it is the custom to have another priest there as well. This is their usual practice, but is only theory in this context. By not giving sworn evidence, Pell did not state that another priest was actually present, or deny that he was alone. I'd wonder why.

Again, my reservation is that we're talking about a Cathedral after high mass, it wasn't a little country church or a quiet suburban service, there would have been people everywhere and there would have been a routine for everyone to follow. Pell as Bishop is pretty much the focus of the entire ceremony, didn't anyone notice that both him and the thirteen year old choir boys were missing for a while?

Not saying he's innocent, just that I have reservations - especially given the fact that the first jury couldn't reach a verdict.

As I mentioned earlier, some strange aspects to the case, particularly in relation to defense evidence that wasn't admitted.  That's why I suspect an appeal will succeed.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/on-george-pells-conviction-how-can-this-stand/news-story/4b94f2ce77a8ec5c313d91c9d5073ffd

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/beyond-reasonable-doubt-was-pell-convicted-without-fear-and-favour-20190227-p510j0.html

Again, my reservation is that we're talking about a Cathedral after high mass, it wasn't a little country church or a quiet suburban service, there would have been people everywhere and there would have been a routine for everyone to follow. Pell as Bishop is pretty much the focus of the entire ceremony, didn't anyone notice that both him and the thirteen year old choir boys were missing for a while?

If you've ever seen the crowd at St Patrick's at and after High Mass, you could lose any number of people. Richter said it would have been impossible for these two boys to go missing without being noticed. I have a certain regard for Richter's legal skills, but that statement is just baloney. The boys' duties were well and truly over, they were not required to be in any specific place any longer, and could have easily wandered off and not a soul would have missed them.
As for Pell; he wasn't missing. He'd finished the service and its aftermath and was also not needed anywhere in particular. Having finished, he headed off, as usual, to the Sacristy which he'd done hundreds of times before. That's the whole point - his routine would have aroused no suspicion at all - it was business as usual.

As I mentioned earlier, some strange aspects to the case, particularly in relation to defence evidence that wasn't admitted.  That's why I suspect an appeal will succeed.

The defence evidence faltered because Pell did not testify. There is a good deal of legal opinion in today's press that an appeal is less likely to succeed if the defendant did not give evidence at trial.

As I said previously, customary practice is not convincing evidence unless someone gives sworn testimony that it was followed on that day. Nobody did.
I have to wonder why Australia's pre-eminent Clergyman would not swear on the Bible to tell the truth. One might think that he'd jump at the chance.

From 2geebee.
The planned bail application this afternoon, will not proceed.
Pell's QC, said the conviction, warranted a custodial sentence.
Huh?

From 2geebee.
The planned bail application this afternoon, will not proceed.
Pell's QC, said the conviction, warranted a custodial sentence.
Huh?

Seems he decided to bring his toothbrush then.

No doubt to the dismay of Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/27/news-corp-columnists-declare-cardinal-pell-innocent-and-a-scapegoat

Former PM John Howard has provided a character reference for Pell, and as of 2 minutes ago, George Pell has been remanded in custody - https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/former-pm-john-howard-gives-character-reference-for-george-pell-after-child-abuse-conviction/ar-BBU8dsA?ocid=spartanntp
Kind Regards

Yep, off to the Melbourne Assessment Prison he goes.

Pity that the taxpayer has to fork out for his board and lodgings though.

He's used to someone else paying the bills - it's been the church for decades, now its us.
And; Robert Richter QC does not come cheap; who's footing his bill?

He's used to someone else paying the bills - it's been the church for decades, now its us.
And; Robert Richter QC does not come cheap; who's footing his bill?

It was mentioned in an ABC item that many people had contributed to his defence.

"plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”.  Richter said

Is it just me,  or  is the wording in that an admission of guilt.

Richter QC is estimated to charge between $10,000 and $15,000 a day.
The Vatican declined to pay his costs, and it is said that a group of conservative Catholic businessmen is footing the bill. I hope the group's members think it's money well spent.

Meanwhile, I wonder how long it will take for Pell to realise that he's no longer the Big Boss in fancy dress. As of now, he'll do what he's told, when he's told and where he's told.

Pell's QC, said the conviction, warranted a custodial sentence.

He had no choice. He had to say that. If he didn't, he'd sound as though he considered paedophilia to be a very minor offence, which would make him the laughing stock of Australia.

Former PM John Howard has provided a character reference for Pell, and as of 2 minutes ago, George Pell has been remanded in custody - https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/former-pm-john-howard-gives-character-reference-for-george-pell-after-child-abuse-conviction/ar-BBU8dsA?ocid=spartanntp
Kind Regards

JH should have stayed away from this and is not doing his reputation any favors at all.

Yep, off to the Melbourne Assessment Prison he goes.

Pity that the taxpayer has to fork out for his board and lodgings though.

Surely he will be protected and where is this prison based?

My thoughts are to stand back and observe the processes of Justice take place. A lot of priests and bishops are somewhat gobsmacked by this finding of guilt; an example would be Frank Brennan in Eureka Street. His piece is worth a read if only to understand why many individuals in sacred orders feel the same way: https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/truth-and-justice-after-the-pell-verdict

As I say, I'll stand back and watch what comes.

Yep, off to the Melbourne Assessment Prison he goes.

Pity that the taxpayer has to fork out for his board and lodgings though.

Surely he will be protected and where is this prison based?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=melbourne+assessment+prison

"plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”.  Richter said

Is it just me,  or  is the wording in that an admission of guilt.

Stupid comment by Richter which he has already been admonished for but no, it isn't. The trial phase and the sentencing phase are totally different things.

You still have right to appeal even after the sentence is handed down so it comments made in the sentencing phase have no bearing on the trial.

Although of course any judge or jury hearing any future appeal will no doubt remember them! So like I said, stupid comments from the Barrister.

BG

Yep, off to the Melbourne Assessment Prison he goes.

Pity that the taxpayer has to fork out for his board and lodgings though.

Surely he will be protected and where is this prison based?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=melbourne+assessment+prison

Exactly !!

bevans , really, you are from Melbourne right?

"plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”.  Richter said

Is it just me,  or  is the wording in that an admission of guilt.

As Valvegear said, he's supposedly the best that money can buy, but that statement is an admission of guilt before a possible re-trial. I have to wonder if Richter is actually a terrible lawyer after that performance.

Amazing from Richter, and the Judge was reported as furious and let him know. There won't be a re-trial as such, because a verdict has been reached. An appeal will be heard before three judges in the Court of Appeal. Fortunately for Richter, that statement will be probably be outside the grounds for appeal, and the Appeal Court won't hear it. Pity!

Meanwhile, John Howard might care to re-think his character reference. It could easily be re-written as, "Yes. He fooled me too."

Satire is on fire this week, providing better headlines than the actual media

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/i-dont-think-there-is-enough-evidence-to-convict-pell-says-man-who-invaded-iraq-on-a-hunch/?fbclid=IwAR1nkAtYbnxJYP8gEKT_wNGOi7KTprzhzfGBk6_1B7V3oMf_5_e7LITD-Ho

Satire is on fire this week, providing better headlines than the actual media

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/i-dont-think-there-is-enough-evidence-to-convict-pell-says-man-who-invaded-iraq-on-a-hunch/?fbclid=IwAR1nkAtYbnxJYP8gEKT_wNGOi7KTprzhzfGBk6_1B7V3oMf_5_e7LITD-Ho

I also don't think climate change is real

Richter is Pell’s defender, his comment is not an admission of guilt, guilt was already declared by the jury. Richter’s statement was purely an attempt to mitigate penalty - assholeish? Yes, but entirely legitimate in the circumstance, he is effectively obligated to make statements to cast the offences in a better light.

Fortunately, in this particular case, the learned trial judge saw the comments exactly as he should have. This will have no bearing on any subsequent appeals.

Iimmediately after such a service both the both the minister and the choir would be changing out of their robes etc in the rooms at the back of the church, so away from the congregation for this period perhaps?

Listened briefly to a shock jock earlier, curiosity and enlightenment. Was not disappointed.
Inferred was a stitch up and/or unfair, due to pells converstive views on marriage and the kicker, climate change. Shazam.

Richter is Pell’s defender, his comment is not an admission of guilt, guilt was already declared by the jury. Richter’s statement was purely an attempt to mitigate penalty - assholeish? Yes, but entirely legitimate in the circumstance, he is effectively obligated to make statements to cast the offences in a better light.

Fortunately, in this particular case, the learned trial judge saw the comments exactly as he should have. This will have no bearing on any subsequent appeals.

This is what Richter is paid to do at $10k per day.

Perhaps Pell could become the prison chaplain?