It looks like Pell will spend 3 months or more in Prison for a 'crime' that never had any credibility and so ought never have even gone to trial. Pell was dealing with 5 unsupported and almost self evidently preposterous accusations from 1 man. This man was previously reported as 'not doing so well' and from a reading of Milligan it appears that he had some level of mental health issues at the time he made the accusations.

But crucially the vital change in his story is from locked to unlocked. The man either made up a story or more probably was delusional when he reported the matter to the police.

The police then took many months to get a cleaned up formal statement from him.

The truth was that the complainant never knew what the sacristy looked like from the inside because as a choirboy he would most probably never have been in it! The grieving mother had no reason to lie and Milligan knows this.

The police knew that the complainant changed his story from crimes that supposedly took place behind locked doors to ones that happened while the doors were open!

As Bolt is pointing out; the beak that has just sentenced Pell in his sentencing remarks simply said that he was compelled in his actions as a result of the Jury; reading between the lines he almost apologized for sentencing Pell, but that's not the way that the ABC types are reporting this.

BTW I'm an atheist quite hostile to any hocus-pocus. But this case is one of utter rubbish and as bad as any I have seen. The appeal will be unanimously upheld IMV.

Banjo

The moment you abandon the principle of presumption of innocence, then essentially the accused has to prove his innocence and the jury becomes a lynch mob where guilt is subjective and based on personal feelings rather than hard evidence.

The purpose of this presumption is that before the state robs a person of his human rights and liberty that a case needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There are already too many people falsely imprisoned.

If the appeal succeeds, then Pell is legally entirely innocent and up for a fat handout from the taxpayer for false imprisonment.

Pell's accuser was believed by police, the Victorian director
of public prosecutions and ultimately a jury. The first jury
did not acquit Pell. He was not in any sense cleared by their failure to reach a verdict. The very tight circle that knows how the
jurors voted does not include Andrew Bolt or Miranda Devine.
The first trial could not reach a unanimous vote or a 11-1
majority verdict. This led to the second trial which unanimously
found Pell Guilty on all five charges - hence his conviction and
sentencing.

Foxy,

"The very tight circle that knows how the
jurors voted does not include Andrew Bolt or Miranda Devine."

How many more times are you going to repeat this obvious attempt at obfuscation?

"BTW - you told me in the article discussion about Pell -
that the jurors in Pell's first trial found him 10-2
for acquittal. In actual fact the first jury did not
acquit Pell."

of course, they did not acquit Pell, they however, voted 10 to 12 to find him not guilty, that is acquit him.

Why do you find it hard to think that people knew this; you seem to know.

When a case smells as bad as this one does it has clearly gone into the realm of a manifestly unsafe verdict.

It is vital to recall that 2 boys were supposed to have been set upon by a Bishop in full regalia after a mass and both of them orally raped and that they then went back to singing and that they kept in contact but they never spoke of it again!

What we are being asked to accept is that a person who is always after money to feed a drug habit never twigged that he had a rock solid case and a big payout coming from the Church that was regularly paying!

He and his mate supposedly took no interest in the welfare of any other choir boys. They were treated in this manner but could care less about those that were to follow. Isn't that typical of men. Only think of what?

This isn't thinking it is lunacy pure and simple.

People have a duty to protect children but their minutes of trauma bring on nothing but a police beat up after a delusional accusation by one of them 20 very odd years later.

It is no good hiding behind the great wisdom of our police prosecutors and a perverse verdict from a jury because we all know that it was the very same idiocy that produced Lindy's nightmare.

This case simply can't be beyond a reasonable doubt and that is why it will be undone on appeal. But it ought never have gone to trial in the first place. The authorities knew that they were bringing a case that didn't stack up and ABC journo Milligan knows it as well.

Pell can't be convicted of this utter rubbish and it is not just right wingers saying so. I am of the extreme left and I say this madness endangers us all.

Is Mise,

No. they voted 10 - 2 to acquit in the first trial.
They could not reach a unanimous vote - Or a
majority of 11-1 verdict. Therefore the first trial
did not acquit Pell. He was not in any sense cleared by the
failure to reach a verdict.
Hence the mistrial. And a second trial with a unanimous
12 jury verdict of guilty!

What's wrong with you that you can't understand what's
being said?