Brendon wrote on Mar 6
th, 2019 at 6:03am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 6
th, 2019 at 1:57am:
Brendon wrote on Mar 5
th, 2019 at 9:01pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 5
th, 2019 at 7:59pm:
I imagine Pell's barrister must have been the best, so how could one person's word persuade a jury to unanimously find Pell guilty?
Keep in mind Pell didn't testify. So it was the young man's word against....nobody, really.
Why didn't Pell take the stand? Yeah, right.
They believed him beyond reasonable doubt. And it wasn't just his testimony. Important would be testimony of others regarding what he confessed to what happened at the other boy's funeral.
I know we are bought up on fingerprints, DNA, and a hair in the boot of the car stuff, but witness testimony is very powerful evidence.
Sure, but witness testimony is all they have in the trial of the decade. This is the most senior Catholic ever to be convicted - of anything (apart from treason).
If we have these questions, what about the jury?
What do you mean
"witness testimony is all they have"?
A witness who testifies he saw Pell committing a crime and was also a victim himself, is direct evidence. Direct evidence “directly” shows the defendant's guilt.
It's up to the jury to weigh the credibility of the witness. If they find his first hand evidence credible, it would be hard not to say Pell was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Obviously they found him a credible witness. Now, thinking about that, if you were on the jury and you found him to be a credible witness, and therefore you would believe his first hand account - would you find Pell guilty?
I'd be tempted to, Brandon, sure. But I'd also be looking at the evidence and listening to what Pell's barrister presumably said about beyond any reasonable doubt.
I have doubts that the victim could not easily have made up a story to attack Pell and the Catholic Church. I also have doubt, as Pell said, that there wouldn't have been plenty of people milling around after a service of that size. Why would Pell put himself at such risk?
I have doubt, legitimate I think, that Pell would do something like this in a church after a mass. One thing Pell does have is a deep-seated belief in the rituals and sanctimony of the Catholic Church. Pell is most definitely a holier-than-thou kind of guy.
The look on Pell's face when he was told of these charges was genuine, I think. You could see the blood rise straight to his head and face. It is indeed a farcical charge - a priest of Pell's stature pulling out his dick and orally raping two boys as punishment for breaking into the priest's chamber. Pell's right - it's a ludicrous claim, even if true.
These are all doubts, Brandon. They've also caused me to doubt the 7.30 Report allegations made about Pell in his younger days in Melbourne. As the court ruled, none of that was provable, could easily have been misconstrued or didn't meet the threshold for a criminal act.
When I saw the witnesses describing their claims, I was convinced. I believed Pell was guilty for sure. The court found otherwise.
What I'm saying is I have reasonable doubts that have not been put to rest. I think for a trial of this magnitude, we should be presented with the evidence the jury went on. Members of the Catholic Church have come out to confirm these doubts, and I can understand them perfectly. Without the evidence, Pell is being turned into a martyr.
Forum
Pages: 
George Pell Has Been Found Guilty Of Child Sexual (Read 29160 times)
