Dear Shadow Minister,

You asked; “Can you put your hand on your heart and say that the witness J didn't embellish his story? Have you a shred of evidence other than his testimony that you wholeheartedly believed without hearing it.”

I don't think anyone could in all honesty.

Of course, the fact that an alleged incident can be described as ‘improbable’ does not mean that the evidence concerning that incident is untrue. And, of course, a conviction for an offence can be based solely upon the evidence of a witness who is sufficiently credible and reliable, even if that witness’ account is properly described as implausible.

Wouldn't you agree?

Hi Shadow Minister,

The 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.

Careful analysis of the full reasoning of the
high court is required to full assess the court's
decision.

But for now this extraordinary outcome is as many
legal academics have said - is strange justice
indeed. Pell did win on a legal technicality - not
because he was found innocent of the charges.

The high court judgement found there was not enough
evidence to convict him. The offence could have
occurred, but there was enough "reasonable doubt"
in the allegations.

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

Foxy,

The verdict not guilty is synonymous with innocent. That is a legal technicality.

The outcome was far from extraordinary, what was extraordinary was that the trial judge failed in his duty to explain to the jury the basic rules of evidence. If I with two years of commercial law and a basic introduction could work it out, it means that the trial judge and two appeal judges simply ignored it.

Similarly, the opinion of a chunk of the population that believed him guilty before the trial began is also irrelevant.

At some point in the next six months Biden's rape allegations are going to be discussed in these pages.

Let me predict right now that all those sanctimoniously declaring that, since someone isn't found innocent, then they are likely guilty, will suddenly discover that due process and innocent until proven guilty is the only moral stance

Shadow Minister,

I don't see the point in continuing this discussion
with you. We'll just be going around in circles.

History, our best guide directs us to keep an
open mind and await further developments.

mhaze,

Predicting the future is risky at the best of times.
As some of us have learned.

Dear Foxy,

Shadow Minister thinks that History is BS, which goes to show how ignorant he is.