View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Woods
Joined: 21 Aug 2013 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
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. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Woods wrote: | ...
If there is a reasonable doubt then the verdict is unsound and Pell walks free. ... |
Not necessarily. The appeal judges can order a new trial. |
|
|
|
|
Woods
Joined: 21 Aug 2013 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
Joined: 21 Aug 2013 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | Woods wrote: | ...
If there is a reasonable doubt then the verdict is unsound and Pell walks free. ... |
Not necessarily. The appeal judges can order a new trial. |
Maybe, but i don't think anybody is arguing that the trial itself was unsound. It's the jury reaching an unsound verdict that seems to be at issue. So the previous trial can stand (evidence, testimony etc). |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
Joined: 21 Aug 2013 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
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
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
|
|
|
|
Woods
Joined: 21 Aug 2013 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Story by David Marr who is now wiggling and squirming at the thought of Pell walking free. As he should, because I wouldn't be surprised if Pell doesn't sue Marr for some of the things he has written about Pell.
Marr couldn't give a rat's arse about the charges Pell has faced or the alleged victims - he hates Pell because Pell opposed same sex marriage which Marr, being openly homosexual, championed in the media. The spiteful hated of Marr for Pell runs deep. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
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?"...
Last edited by K on Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:19 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
watched a bit of it.
Putting everything in context, along the lines of what I've said previously, there will be no winners here. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Interesting, there is no appeal against a High Court decision. You also can't just refer a case to them, you have to convince them first that they should hear the case.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/operation-of-the-high-court _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
Woods wrote: |
Story by David Marr who is now wiggling and squirming at the thought of Pell walking free. As he should, because I wouldn't be surprised if Pell doesn't sue Marr for some of the things he has written about Pell.
Marr couldn't give a rat's arse about the charges Pell has faced or the alleged victims - he hates Pell because Pell opposed same sex marriage which Marr, being openly homosexual, championed in the media. The spiteful hated of Marr for Pell runs deep. |
He’s not Robinson Crusoe on that, though – how about Clementine Ford, who called Andrew Bolt a “paedophile apologist” for expressing doubts about the initial verdict? It’s tricky as it surely can’t be considered defamatory in hindsight to have treated a guilty verdict as fact. But I wouldn’t be surprised if those pieces disappear off the net if Pell wins this appeal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you at least somewhat on Marr, who I respect greatly – while it’s likely that his animosity towards Pell is at least partially motivated by the latter’s key role in opposing gay rights over the years, I think it’s unfair to say that he doesn’t care about abuse victims. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Who would you like to appeal to? The Vatican, maybe? |
|
|
|
|
|