Posted on 03/12/2020 5:56:34 AM PDT by naturalman1975
The High Court will consider acquitting George Pell of sexually abusing two choirboys as the prosecution changed its timeframe for when the assaults could have occurred.
The full bench was asked on Thursday to acquit Pell, 78, of five charges of molesting the two 13-year-olds in 1996 and 1997 while archbishop of Melbourne, but the matter also could be referred back to the Victorian Court of Appeal.
Mr Walker excoriated the prosecution, accusing it of changing the parameters of the case and attempting to massage the facts to fit the legal narrative.
Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions Kerri Judd QC faced a torrid day before the full bench, peppered with questions about the veracity of the facts that led to Pell’s six-year jail sentence, which was delivered a year ago.
Supporters hope the cardinal could be freed within weeks but there were discussions in court about the matter being referred back to the Court of Appeal, which could delay by months any review of the decision.
The High Court has asked for further submissions from the parties but experts are predicting a possible acquittal as Bret Walker SC, for Pell, effectively asked the full bench to free his client.
Mr Walker savaged the prosecutors’ conduct, for what he called “an improvised and rickety construction of a crown case to make something fit that will not fit". He said the crown had delivered a “grotesque version of the reversal of onus of proof" and that by showing it was possible Pell might not have been on the steps of the cathedral, had proved his guilt “beyond reasonable doubt".
“All the crown had to do is prove the opposite," he said. Ms Judd stunned the court when she abandoned the prosecution’s position over the amount of time that private prayer was held for after Solemn Mass. She said the five- to six-minute timeframe, which the prosecution claimed gave the opportunity to offend, may actually have been longer, depending on what unfolded in the cathedral on the day.
On the amount of time allowed for private prayer, Ms Judd said: “They are approximate times. It was not a precise five or six minutes." She urged the court not to tie the offending to a specific time, arguing that events in the cathedral were fluid.
It was not clear from Ms Judd exactly when Pell was supposed to have offended, although it had previously been stated that he assaulted the boys after the procession had ended and he returned to change in the sacristy.
The five- to six-minute timeframe was put to the jury and, until Thursday, was at the centre of the prosecution narrative.
Ms Judd also conceded that evidence of George Pell’s right-hand man, Monsignor Charles Portelli, when viewed on its own, could create enough doubt to prevent Pell’s convictions.
But she urged the court to view the case’s evidence in its entirety when considering the plausibility of Pell’s offending. Ms Judd outlined a series of reasons why she believed the court should not place excessive weight on Monsignor Portelli’s evidence, which was that it was his practice to be by Pell’s side in the cathedral whenever Pell was robed.
“Yes, I do accept that when you look at Monsignor Portelli on his own we may not be able to negate this to the standard we need to," she said.
“But when you look at the whole of the evidence, it does."
Ms Judd said one of the strongest pieces of evidence proving Pell’s guilt was the fact the complainant knew specific details about the sacristy at St Patrick’s — the scene of the alleged sexual abuse and a room that was off-limits to the choirboys.
But judge Geoffrey Nettle probed whether this information specifically proved Pell had been in the room at the time the alleged offence was committed.
Chief judge Susan Kiefel also weighed in, questioning that while this showed the complainant may have entered the sacristy at some point in time, “does it ever go further than that?”.
Mr Walker seized on Ms Judd’s argument, declaring that nothing about the complainant’s accurate descriptions of the room proved Pell was also there and committed the abuse.
There were a series of other abuse allegations from the Ballarat diocese that did not go to trial.
For a number of reasons I hope that if Cardinal Pell is,in fact,innocent that the court reverses the verdict.
I am not a lawyer - I did study some law at university, but nowhere near a full law degree - but this does seem extraordinary to me. All through this trial process, the prosecution has taken the position that the alleged main incident of abuse must have occurred in a five- or six- minute period immediately after a High Mass at the Cathedral, and has generally conceded that if this time frame did not hold up, the Cardinal could not be guilty.
Now on the second and last day of Cardinal Pell’s final chance at appeal, the Director of Public Prosecution - in American terms, I think this is similar to a District Attorney - has argued that maybe that time frame could have been longer, so demonstrating that Cardinal Pell was likely elsewhere at the time (on the Cathedral steps talking to people who had attended the Mass) wouldn’t actually show he was not guilty - this seems an extraordinary step so late in proceedings.
I have said from the start - as have many others - that the timeline and suggestion that Cardinal Pell could have sexually molested two boys in the open Sacristy of the Cathedral immediately after Mass seemed ludicrous - anybody who has knowledge of such a Mass and a place would understand that room would have been full of Altar Servers, co-celebrants, going in and out at that time - added to that that the length of the procession from the Altar to the Sacristy would have taken at a minimum most of that time, even if the Cardinal (then the brand new Archbishop of Melbourne, celebrating his first or second High Mass at the Cathedral - these are the only possible dates things could have happened according to the Prosecution) hadn’t stopped to talk to parishoners on the steps as was normal practice.
Now the Prosecution seems to want to move the goalposts at the last minute.
There was something, (no other word for it) diabolical, about all this from the very beginning.
One of my concerns about this case is the lack of any corroborating evidence.
Sexual practices such as forced fellatio from adolescent boys is not a one-of occurrence in a middle-aged man.
To be credible, there would be a history.
Perhaps not a provable, prosecutable, history, but a history, at least of allegations.
I have not seen any evidence of such a history.
IIRC that hatred was based on the Cardinal's attitudes on abortion and/or homosexuality.
Sounds like something that could happen right here in the good old U S of A!
“Times were not exact...” = “We made the whole thing up, so its impossible for events to have transpired as claimed.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.