Is Miss,

Yes. The principle in law of reasonable doubt is not a technicality; and the Court found, unanimously, that there was a high probability that that Cardinal Pell was not guilty. He is still Cardinal Pell: not Pell or George Pell, as he is called by ignorant grunts who ape the ABC and Leftist rags; the grunts who believe in the rule of law, now restored by the High Court unanimously, only when it goes the way they want it. Truly horrible people - modern versions of witch-burners and lynch mobs of more unenlightened and barbaric times.

.

Dear Foxy, Is Mise & ttbn,

.

You, Foxy, posted a link to an article written by Ben Mathews and Mark Nicholas Bernard Thomas in The Canberra Times dated 7 April 2020 in which it was stated :

« The High Court has given claims about lack of opportunity an elevated technical legal status that outweighs the jury's belief in the complainant's testimony and their evident discounting of Pell's claimed lack of opportunity. This appears perilously close to re-trial by the court … Pell has won today on a legal technicality … »

About which, you, Is Mise, wrote to Foxy :

« He [Pell] did not win on a legal technicality but because the Judges of the High Court applied the law – sloppy journalism »

And, you, ttbn, wrote to Is Mise :

« Yes. The principle in law of reasonable doubt is not a technicality; and the Court found, unanimously, that there was a high probability that that Cardinal Pell was not guilty »
.

The “legal technicality” the authors are referring to is complex and I am sure that you, Is Mise and ttbn, are not the only ones who have misinterpreted it.

Perhaps you will have noticed that the authors are not journalists but eminent professors of law at the Queensland University of Technology (as indicated at the bottom of the article) :

http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/b.mathews

http://au.linkedin.com/in/mark-thomas-5a8a3379

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

They explain in the article :

« The High Court allowed "special leave to appeal". This is unusual, as special leave applications arguing an unreasonable verdict are frequently refused, including in child sexual offence cases.

It can only grant leave if the case involves a question of legal principle, or if - as found here - there's a question of the administration of justice.

Pell claimed the Court of Appeal misapplied the legal test, causing a miscarriage of justice.

The question for the High Court in whether to give special leave was not whether Pell was guilty, or whether the jury was right.
It was whether the case involved an issue engaging the interests of the administration of justice.

The High Court found the interests of the administration of justice required their involvement. This does not itself indicate any view about Pell's guilt »
.

The “legal technicality” to which the authors refer is the fact that the High Court “can only grant leave if the case involves a question of legal principle, or if - as found here - there's a question of the administration of justice”.

Here is the text of the “legal technicality” to which they refer :

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ja1903112/s35a.html

As the authors indicate :

« This does not itself indicate any view about Pell's guilt »
.

I hope this clarifies matters for you.

.

SR,

First you substantially misrepresent the judgement then try to admonish me for doing the same, but as usual manage to cock it up. How do you live with yourself?

To quote:"The unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses was inconsistent with the complainant's account."

For context, opportunity witnesses are those not necessarily witnesses to the crime or involved with either part, but can bear witness to events surrounding the event and the context and can be called by either the prosecution or defense. These witnesses are generally used to corroborate or challenge given by the main witnesses.

That there were significant discrepancies between the account by the main and sole witness to the "crime" and several opportunity witnesses and that the prosecution was unable to challenge their accounts meant that credibility of the main witness was damaged and without positive corroboration was well short of being sufficient for a conviction.

A competent trial judge would have recognised this and would have advised the jury. That the judge failed to do so is a blight on his reputation, that two Victorian appellate judges made the same blunder calls for an inquiry into the Victorian justice system.

To all,

The Catholic church has a lot of blood on its hands, and it deserves to be punished not just for covering up the crimes of its deviant priests, but in enabling them to continue their crimes. I personally would have no truck in prosecuting anyone who perpetrated or covered up these crimes and putting them in jail for the rest of their lives and fining the church bodies that did this in penury.

However, this does not justify in any way the orchestrated attempt to railroad Pell. This travesty of justice blew up in the face of the Victorian justice system and has not only damaged their credibility, but has damaged their ability to convict future felons plus having wasted $ms in taxpayer money.

If Pell sues the Vic legal system he could walk away with more $ms and tie up the system for years.

To top it up, this cock up falls firmly at the feet of Daniel Andrews who is actively blocking any review but may be forced into it if Pell chooses to challenge.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I certainly defy you show where I have even slightly misrepresented the judgement. I didn't.

Your take on it however I robustly and justifiably derided.

The opportunity witnesses were there to support Pell's assertion that he did not have the 'opportunity' to commit the offence.

They made a number of categorical statements about the conduct of the mass. They could not and did not attest to exactly what happened on the day.

There was one of their categorical statements that could be directly tested and that was regarding Pell's vestments. From the appeal;

“Reliance was placed on categorical statements by Portelli and by Potter that it was not possible to pull the alb to the side while the cincture was tied at the waist.97 145 In response, senior counsel for the Crown invited the members of the Court to try on the robes. They were an exhibit at the trial and, we were told, had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation. Counsel for Cardinal Pell did not demur.

In final address, the prosecutor invited the jury to feel the weight of the alb and ‘assess its manoeuvrability as a garment’. This gave the jury the opportunity, counsel submitted, ‘to assess whether what [A] described as having occurred is physically possible or impossible.’ Having taken advantage of that opportunity ourselves, we consider that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility.98 The alb was neither so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Portelli and Potter had suggested. To our observation, it was well capable of being manoeuvred — while the cincture was firmly tied at the waist — in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.”

If I were in the jury and found that a major categorical statement by two prime witnesses for the defense were patently untrue I would most certainly have given the rest of their evidence less weight.