Bazz,

You're right. Cardinal Pell could not be in
two places at once. Obviously someone lied.
The jury believed witness J - not Pell's dresser -
Father Portelli's testimony. Another witness
had also come forward -
Pell's lawyer dropped his testimony.

Foxy, legally Pell is innocent because our legal system says you are innocent until proven guilty.
The one Victorian judge who upheld the appeal was the only one of the three judges who had any criminal law experience. The other two judges had none and so they based their whole argument on their emotional response to the victim. The experienced judge looked at the facts of the case and said that there was no proof that the crime was committed. He wrote a very long explanation of his reasons, and now his verdict has been supported by 7 High Court judges.
I know you want Pell to be guilty but fortunately our legal system has been salvaged and upheld and no disturbing legal precedent has been set.

Foxy,

It's not a question of who you believe. Without corroborating evidence a witness can be credible, consistent, etc and still lying through his teeth.

The focus on a single uncorroborated witness put Pell in the position of having to prove his innocence.

Pell's original conviction was a miscarriage of justice which was subsequently rectified.

Hi Big Nana,

No. Cardinal Pell is not innocent. He just
hasn't been found guilty. And no, I don't want him
to be guilty. I want him to be proven innocent.
He wasn't. It was merely found that the crimes
could not be proven. Our legal system needs
reforming.

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

As Professors of law have pointed out (I gave you some of
them in an earlier post):

"The very nature of sexual assault is complex. It regularly
occurs in private, the victims themselves are often the only
witnesses, there are generally long delays before disclosure,
there is rarely any physical evidence and the case often
centres on issues of credibility."

"We also have the entrenchment throughout society of
misconceptions and stereotypes abound victim/survivors
(often the victims are blamed for their own victimisation
and children routinely lieing)."

"These aspects pose a unique set of challenges to the
traditional judicial processing of cases."

Reforms need to move towards addressing how the system can be
more responsive to victims/survivors justice needs.

Foxy,

According to the legal system Pell is innocent. There is no requirement to prove one's innocence beyond reasonable doubt in any court in the free world otherwise Shorten would now be languishing in jail. The high court applied the rules of evidence without emotion or bias which the victorian judges failed to do.

Any case relying solely on the witness testimony of one involved witness will fail to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, irrespective of whether it is theft, jay walking, murder or rape. This principle is applied in Aus, NZ, the UK, the US, Canada, etc irrespective of the comments of the legal "experts" you quote.

That witnesses have lied convincingly for their own benefit is not news. There was not a shred of evidence presented in court that corroborated the witness's story.

SR,

No one "deserves" a day in court. In bringing a clearly deficient case to court the Victorian prosecution has exposed itself to massive liability. If they try to continue this witch hunt, Pell can sue them for millions.

Victoria is the only state that does not give the option of a judge only trial, this is a clear case where this failed.

Shadow, the Victorian prosecution did not bring the case.
They refused as the evidence was too weak, so the police did it.