Foxy, I dont know who your supposed legal experts are but the exact words from the 7 judges in the highest court in the land are

”With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".

That does not imply a legal technicality, it goes to the very foundation of our legal system, that a person must be proven guilty, not just convicted on an accusation.

Foxy's regressive tactic again, Repeat a lie often enough in order to convince themselves of untruths

'Legal academics have described the Pell case
as being acquitted on a technicality.;

Funny how the regressives jumped to Jussie Smollets defense. Oh that's right it never made the fake news after he was exposed.

The Victorian Prosecution service refused to take up the case and made the Police Dept fund it. I wonder why ?
Also the court and the appeal court ignored the evidence that a witness
was at the front of the church with Pell talking with a number of
attendees at the service.
It wasn't a technicality, he couldn't have been in two places at the same time !

Hi Big Nana,

They're not "my"supposed legal experts.
And the web has been full of their recorded
articles. I'm surprised that you haven't read either
what's been on the web - or what I've been citing
on the forum in the Pell's acquitall discussion in
the general secion.

Anyway they included people like -

Prof. Ben Mathews, Prof. School of Law
Queensland University of Technology.

Bernard Thomas, Senior Lecturer, Queensland University of
Technology.

Professor Gideon Boas, a barrister and Professor of
Law at La Trobe University in Melbourne.

Dr Tyrone Kirchengast, a barrister and solicitor of the
high court.

And many more.

The Pelll case had a set of unique and complex circumstances.
Prof. David Hamer with the University of Sydney Law School
said that the Pell case was complex and even experts had
different readings and views of it and the high court
decision

Eventually Pell's freedom by the high court does not mean that
Cardinal Pell did not perpetrate the abhorent acts of which
he was convicted earlier - it only means that the
available evidence could not prove the crimes -
"beyond reasonable doubt."

The following link explains:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6715000/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality

The high court is the highest court in the
Australian judicial system. The judges
did not accuse the young witness against
Pell of being a liar or a fantasist. They
did not find his evidence contained discrepancies
or displayed inadequacies.

As one commentator pointed out -

"Long term, the court's decision reinforces scepticism
in senior legal circles about prosecution of accusations
of sex crimes committed a long time ago."

"The question that has yet to be fully explored is how
the law operates here when time has placed everyone -
the accused, accusers, police, and prosecutors at such
a disadvantage."

Of course we have to respect the high court's decision.
I'm sure that it was carefully considered and well
founded in criminal law.

But perhaps reforms are now long overdue?

Nevertheless despite all the technical reasons he could not be in two
places at the same time !
Not unless he was Dr Who !