It seems from the current exchange in court that the panel of judges have concluded that there is reasonable doubt in the evidence that went before the jury (which found Pell guilty).
The appeal judges are now asking whether the jury by being present when testimony was given in the original trial had an ability to put aside all reasonable doubt. The prosecution barrister (Boyce) is saying yes, being present gave the jury insight that can't be read from the trial transcript alone (which is what the appeal judges rely on).
The judges are almost begging Boyce to explain why the jury's view should hold sway. But he isn't making any headway.
If there is a reasonable doubt then the verdict is unsound and Pell walks free. And fair enough too if the jury has ignored eveidence of doubt.
George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation
Moderator: bbmods
-
Woods
- Posts: 2096
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:54 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Maybe, but i don't think anybody is arguing that the trial itself was unsound. It's the jury reaching an unsound verdict that seems to be at issue. So the previous trial can stand (evidence, testimony etc).K wrote:Not necessarily. The appeal judges can order a new trial.Woods wrote:...
If there is a reasonable doubt then the verdict is unsound and Pell walks free. ...
-
Woods
- Posts: 2096
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:54 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Story by David Marr who is now wiggling and squirming at the thought of Pell walking free. As he should, because I wouldn't be surprised if Pell doesn't sue Marr for some of the things he has written about Pell.
Marr couldn't give a rat's arse about the charges Pell has faced or the alleged victims - he hates Pell because Pell opposed same sex marriage which Marr, being openly homosexual, championed in the media. The spiteful hated of Marr for Pell runs deep.
Argument now between the judge and Walker about whether the Crown can be criticized for not calling a witness not nominated by the defence.
The judge says Walker volunteered the information yesterday that the defence went around looking for witnesses who could provide an alibi.
Now they're back to the "impossibility" discussion.
Walker says if the prosecution says it's "possible" that e.g. someone incorrectly remembered something from 22 years ago, the correct response is "so what?"...
The judge says Walker volunteered the information yesterday that the defence went around looking for witnesses who could provide an alibi.
Now they're back to the "impossibility" discussion.
Walker says if the prosecution says it's "possible" that e.g. someone incorrectly remembered something from 22 years ago, the correct response is "so what?"...
Last edited by K on Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 134 times
- Been liked: 169 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 134 times
- Been liked: 169 times
Interesting, there is no appeal against a High Court decision. You also can't just refer a case to them, you have to convince them first that they should hear the case.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/operatio ... high-court
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Who would you like to appeal to? The Vatican, maybe?stui magpie wrote:Interesting, there is no appeal against a High Court decision. You also can't just refer a case to them, you have to convince them first that they should hear the case.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/operatio ... high-court
