You have not seen or heard all the evidence, next to no one has!

Aaron, I've only ever said that these things are my opinion, nothing else.

I've spelled out on this board what my problems with this verdict are but first and foremost the fact that is that it's very difficult for someone accused thirty or forty years after the event to be able to defend themselves from any and all allegations - ultimately John Jarrett's witness was found to be 'not credible' forty years after the alleged rape but what if she had been found to be a 'credible witness'? My guess is that Jarrett would be in jail right now. There should probably be a statute of limitations for these kind of actions if only because it isn't fair to whoever is accused to have to try and defend themselves decades after the event.

Second, you are right - none of us have seen the evidence bar a handful of people. But the fact that one of the judges who viewed the testimony had doubts about the sole testimony that convicted Pell, totally un-corroborated by any other witness - that in itself raises alarm. Don't forget that this is the only piece of evidence that got someone a sentence of six years and the first jury on the case wasn't completely convinced by the testimony they saw either. For those reasons I don't think it can be said to be 'beyond reasonable doubt', instead the other judges seemed to focus on Pell's defense which was admittedly rather weak - but then that takes me back to my original point which is how do you mount an effective defense decades later?

Again, all just my opinion - nobody pop a valve, I'm just giving my own narrative on it.

The reason Jarretts accuser was found to be not credible is likely because the situation she presented was likely fictional, or at least, in some regards not truthful. If she were ruled credible, it would have most likely (believe what conspiracy theory you like) been because her accusations were credible. What would have happened? Jarrett would have likely been rightfully convicted.

Again, one dissenting judge is not a problem. A unanimous conviction at a jury trial, and a majority decision on appeal is well and truly good enough. One dissenting judge does not imply reasonable doubt. Most multi judge decisions don’t go with a unanimous decision.

Pell could have likely requested for a bench trial, Pell was free to contest the selection of any jurors he chose not to do either.

Would it help you to know that one member of the jury that convicted Pell was a church pastor? It was still unanimous.

george pell should burn in hell

…………………………………………

But on the other hand the only other corroborating witness denied that the incident had even happened before his death.

Unfortunately for Pell, that is hearsay and not admissible as evidence.

This quote from ABC News “His mother twice asked him if he had been sexually abused, but he never revealed what had happened to him.”

As to the patronising comments by the Archbishop of Melbourne that it may have been a case of mistaken identity and that their prayers were with the surviving victim, the less said the better, except to point out that, based on his recent comments on another matter, even if Pell did confess to him he wouldn’t report it.

Anyway, should an appeal go to the High Court and be upheld, so be it. Fortunately Tony Abbott is not still Prime Minister, otherwise appeals to the Privy Council would be re-introduced as a backstop (plus knighthoods awarded to all and sundry).

The reason Jarretts accuser was found to be not credible is likely because the situation she presented was likely fictional, or at least, in some regards not truthful. If she were ruled credible, it would have most likely (believe what conspiracy theory you like) been because her accusations were credible. What would have happened? Jarrett would have likely been rightfully convicted.

If that evidence against Pell is ever made public in the future (probably after Pell is dead) then we might get to examine it ourselves but until then we can't know.

And again, put yourself in Jarrett's shoes, how do you defend yourself against a 40-year old rape allegation? He was just lucky that the witness wasn't believed, that's all. Otherwise he'd be in jail just like you said.

Unfortunately for Pell, that is hearsay and not admissible as evidence.

This quote from ABC News “His mother twice asked him if he had been sexually abused, but he never revealed what had happened to him.”

Not exactly right - the quote I found was:

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

I've read elsewhere that he explicitly said 'no' in relation to the church when questioned by his parents.

Is it possible that the witness identified as "J" made the whole thing up in a misguided attempt at what he perceived as an occurrence of sexual abuse 20+ years ago? That's certainly what Justice Weinberg thought on reviewing the evidence.

As Aaron said, found guilty by the justice system so all this is un-answerable now.

The reason Jarretts accuser was found to be not credible is likely because the situation she presented was likely fictional..

Hey, when I first heard the scenario of two choir-boys in the vestry immediately after mass I thought the exact same thing.

Not exactly right - the quote I found was:

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

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-04/george-pell-abuse-victims-family-police-speak-to-4-corners/10856998

A good reason why hearsay shouldn't be used as evidence.

George Pell is appealing to the High Court, however, his case might not be fully resolved until sometime next year.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/george-pell-decides-to-appeal-to-the-high-court/ar-AAGiBq7?ocid=spartanntp

It will be interesting to see the exact grounds for the appeal or, more correctly, the grounds for seeking leave to appeal.

It will be interesting to see the exact grounds for the appeal or, more correctly, the grounds for seeking leave to appeal.

I believe the exact grounds lie within the dissenting Judge's ruling on the case, Pell's Lawyers have apparently gone through his entire ruling, and decided to make a move. his entire ruling is online apparently, but I would not know where to look, it's 284 pages long or something like that!

It was said the judge whom decided to vote for the appeal to be successful was the most experienced judge who was the only criminal judge on the appeal.

It was said the judge whom decided to vote for the appeal to be successful was the most experienced judge who was the only criminal judge on the appeal.

What in the name of Mazeppa is a "criminal judge"?

It was said the judge whom decided to vote for the appeal to be successful was the most experienced judge who was the only criminal judge on the appeal.

What in the name of Mazeppa is a "criminal judge"?

A judge who is also a criminal perhaps?

A "criminal judge" is one whose specialty is crime judgements as opposed to civil litigation.
Criminal lawyer is just tautology!

A "criminal judge" is one whose specialty is crime judgements as opposed to civil litigation.

I knew that barristers specialize in criminal cases, but I had no idea that judges did.

A "criminal judge" is one whose specialty is crime judgements as opposed to civil litigation.

I knew that barristers specialize in criminal cases, but I had no idea that judges did.

In most courts, there are a number of 'divisions' to which judges are appointed (they can be appointed to multiple divisions) and which determine what sorts of cases they will hear. The Supreme Court of Victoria has two divisions: the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal.

There are also 'reserve judges' who get assigned to any cases when necessary, which is Justice Weinberg's position at the moment.

That's not actually the claim which has been made by the likes of Andrew Bolt with regards to Justice Weinberg - the claim is that he was the only one of the three judges to have specialised in criminal cases as a lawyer before becoming a judge. A bit like the size of a fish, the claim is getting bigger every time someone like @freightgate repeats it and tries to impress people by embellishing it.

This claim appears to be based purely on the respective Wikipedia pages for Chief Justice Ferguson and President Maxwell, which of course only mention the most prominent highlights of their careers.

Any claim that Chief Justice Ferguson and President Maxwell have no experience with criminal cases as judges is easily debunked, and that's without me having gone onto databases like AustLII.

• A keyword search for 'Ferguson' on the court's website shows that she ruled on two criminal cases (before the Pell one) since the start of 2018.
• A keyword search for 'Maxwell' on the court's website returned ten hits for Justice Maxwell hearing criminal cases in the last 18 months alone! Further to that, he was also the presiding judge of the panel which unanimously overturned the conviction of Joseph Thomas ('Jihad Jack') which relied on a confession extracted while he was being tortured in a Pakistani prison.

Step back a bit and think about it - is it remotely plausible that judges would be appointed to positions such as Chief Justice of Victoria and President of the Court of Appeals without having clocked up any experience in criminal cases? Even speaking as a South Australian who will happily have a crack at the Vics on any subject, I still say of course not!

In a handy coincidence, the same three judges today gave their ruling on another criminal appeal.

...

That's not actually the claim which has been made with regards to Justice Weinberg - the claim is that he was the only one of the three judges to have specialised in criminal cases as a lawyer before becoming a judge. A bit like the size of a fish, the claim is getting bigger every time someone like @don_dunstan repeats it and tries to impress people by adding to it.

...

If you go back through what I've written I've never said that Weinberg's prior standing had anything to do with his ruling - I've just focused on what he said. I think you're getting me confused with someone else.

...

That's not actually the claim which has been made with regards to Justice Weinberg - the claim is that he was the only one of the three judges to have specialised in criminal cases as a lawyer before becoming a judge. A bit like the size of a fish, the claim is getting bigger every time someone like @don_dunstan repeats it and tries to impress people by adding to it.

...

If you go back through what I've written I've never said that Weinberg's prior standing had anything to do with his ruling - I've just focused on what he said. I think you're getting me confused with someone else.

Apologies, I meant freightgate and have edited the post to correct it.

Pell has lodged an appeal with the High Court announced today.

Pell's past close association with Ridsdale is in the news again:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/books/2019/09/16/george-pell-fallen/

Tomorrow morning we will hear if the High Court will heat George Pell’s appeal.

So far they have not bothered to hear reasons for his appeal, so hence, I am confident that tomorrow is likely the last time we will hear anything about him - until he is released or dies.

Tomorrow morning we will hear if the High Court will heat George Pell’s appeal.

The High Court has granted Pell's application for special leave to appeal.

So far they have not bothered to hear reasons for his appeal, so hence, …

I read a couple of months back (I think it was a Nine/Fairfax story) that of the roughly 15% of applications for special leave that do get granted, roughly half of them get granted on the basis of the Appeal Book alone with no hearing necessary.

Yeah, I know that not actually hearing the case for appeal doesn’t imply not accepting the case for appeal, I just hoped it would.

Guess they have to keep the crazies happy and at least hear the appeal, maybe preventing at least some letters to newspaper editors across the nation/world.

Hear the appeal, hopefully verdict upheld and add an extra few years for being a PITA.
If that's at all possible?