George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

[Woods]

It seems from the current exchange in court that the panel of judges have concluded that there is reasonable doubt in the evidence that went before the jury (which found Pell guilty).
The appeal judges are now asking whether the jury by being present when testimony was given in the original trial had an ability to put aside all reasonable doubt. The prosecution barrister (Boyce) is saying yes, being present gave the jury insight that can't be read from the trial transcript alone (which is what the appeal judges rely on).

The judges are almost begging Boyce to explain why the jury's view should hold sway. But he isn't making any headway.
If there is a reasonable doubt then the verdict is unsound and Pell walks free. And fair enough too if the jury has ignored eveidence of doubt.

[David]

I wasn't sure before, but watching this now, I'll eat my shoe if Pell doesn't win the appeal. Boyce is comprehensively (and, as K says, painfully) failing to establish any reason why the jury should be privileged over the appeals court, which only leaves the question of whether the judges have any reasonable doubt – something that they very much appear to.

[K]

[Woods]

Be an interesting move now if Pell stands up in the dock, and in spite of prison overalls and handcuffs, manages to flop his knob out before the judges.

[Woods]

[K]

Walker is now speaking. The contrast with Boyce is enormous.

Walker is in great detail defending the reliability of Monsignor Portelli's testimony. Walker argues having memory prompted by something does not make it "funny or phoney".

[Woods]

Yes, he's leading the judges by the nose through the evidence - by page, paragraph and line. Judges showing nodding affirmation to some of the points Walker is arguing.

[K]

But the trial judge didn't say anything about Monsignor Portelli, right? It was only the prosecution that tried to portray him as unreliable. I'm assuming the suggestion to "put to one side" Portelli that Walker rejects was in the Crown's submission.

Walker moves on to Mr. Potter.

[David]

Worth keeping this in mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/01/the-george-pell-story-is-a-long-way-from-ending-even-if-he-wins-his-appeal

[Woods]

[K]

Argument now between the judge and Walker about whether the Crown can be criticized for not calling a witness not nominated by the defence.

The judge says Walker volunteered the information yesterday that the defence went around looking for witnesses who could provide an alibi.


Now they're back to the "impossibility" discussion.

Walker says if the prosecution says it's "possible" that e.g. someone incorrectly remembered something from 22 years ago, the correct response is "so what?"...

[stui magpie]

watched a bit of it.

Putting everything in context, along the lines of what I've said previously, there will be no winners here.

[stui magpie]

[David]

[Pies4shaw]