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.