Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote; “clearly noted that there were substantial discrepancies in the testimony of the victim and other prosecution witnesses. This created doubt beyond just reasonable doubt.”

This is patently untrue and represents a disgraceful attempt to rewrite the judgement.

How on earth do you get by each day when you are so intent on denying huge chunks of reality?

I repeat, 7 out of 7 judges of the High Court agreed “that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt."

Therefore it was not the discrepancies in the witness's testimony at all that created doubt but rather the testimonies of the opportunity witnesses did not allow a judgement of beyond reasonable doubt. That is all. Get over it.

I am happy to accept that in the eyes of the law Pell there is not enough evidence to convict him. But the court did not find he was falsely accused, nor did it find he was wrongly charged, only that the burden of proof had not been met.

Like the judges I believe that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require me to entertain any doubt as to Pell's guilt, especially as it was accepted by 12 good citizens who listened to it.

For that reason I personally still regard Pell as a pederist who was lucky to escape natural justice on this occasion.

SR,

Perhaps what the seven Justices meant was discrepancies BETWEEN the testimony of the claimant and those of other prosecution witnesses, not discrepancies in the testimony of the claimant.

Joe

HAPPY EASTER everybody or as we say in my house HAPPY CRUCIFIXION DAY.

We used to just say Easter but we noticed how all the multifunctionals coming from non-Christian backgrounds seem to equate Easter with Xmas as a joyous occasion by saying "Happy Easter!" all the time so we thought that 'crucifixion' must be multifunctional.

The Canberra Times has an article worth reading
describing how George Pell won in the High
Court on a legal technicality.

"The prosecution of Cardinal Pell has been
socially explosive and legally complex."

"The Cardinal's convictions by unanimous jury verdicts
were landmark events in Australian history."

"The High Court's decision both for the legal world
and for society more broadly for many will be
impossible to understand how the unanimous jury verdicts
of guilty, further supported by a Court of Appeal, majority
two judges, can be overturned."

"The High Court decision may undermine confidence in the
legal system, especially in child sexual abuse prosecutions."

The article reminds us that:

"Civil legal actions against Pell are ongoing, so his
legal battles aren't over yet. More civil lawsuits may
well follow, especially after the release of the
royal commission's findings about his conduct in
Ballarat."

One thing the article makes very clear is that

"This High Court appeal did NOT ask whether Pell
committed the offences. It asked whether the two majority
judges in the Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing Pell's
earlier appeal, made an error about the nature of the
correct legal principles, or their application."

The article gives a summary of key events that explains
and is worth reading.

Finally we're told that only with:

"Careful analysis of the full reasoning of the High Court is
required to fully assess the court's decision. But for now,
this extraordinary outcome is strange justice indeed."

"Pell has won on a legal technicality. But he will continue
to be assailed by multiple lawsuits."

"In contrast, the complainant has been believed by a jury,
by a majority judgement and by a substantial body of
public opinion."

You can read more at:

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

My apologies. I left out the "au" in the link.
Here it is again:

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

Foxy,

"The Canberra Times has an article worth reading
describing how George Pell won in the High
Court on a legal technicality.

"The prosecution of Cardinal Pell has been
socially explosive and legally complex."

"The Cardinal's convictions by unanimous jury verdicts
were landmark events in Australian history."

If the rest of the article has as many mistakes as the opening small paragraphs then it is a waste of time reading it.

Firstly, he did not win on a legal technicality but because the Judges of the High Court applied the law.

Secondly, he was not convicted by unanimous jury verdicts but by one verdict.

Thirdly, they were not landmark events as the event was not repeated.

Fourthly, No one is ever convicted in two separate trials for the one offence, if found guilty by one trial then they go to gaol, as Pell did.

Sloppy journalism.