A sad story, but how do we know that it’s accurate? Maybe the ex would tell a different story. Wouldn’t it be bad precedent to make a finding of nullity based on the word of only one of the parties involved? Would it be fair to burden pastors with the responsibility (and the potentially unreasonable expectations) that would likely arise were they to be vested with the authority to make such a unilateral decision? The tribunal process (imperfect though it may be) ensures a greater measure of integrity than putting pastors in the position of making a judgement call.
The Diocesan Tribunal has been on it for well over a year now, but they're so jammed up with Nullity Petitions, they told her frankly they are "triaging" the cases and have made a priority of expediting the ones that are a whole lot more plan and simple (like the husband hadn't told his bride he already had another wife in Thailand.)
In essence, the Tribunal has admitted they cannot provide for Sally's family's spiritual well-being because of the factors of time, complication and paperwork.
Does Sally have a known history of lying, fraud, confabulation, a dissipated life, any record of wrongdoing whatsoever? According to those who know her best --- her present husband, parents, teachers, employer, friends --- No.
Sally does have the one receipt which shows her ex was in trouble with the police about military weaponry he had appropriated for personal use. I think it is reasonable to conclude she is telling the truth, and a grave injustice to keep her shackled canonically to a sociopath. Plus, there is zero chance she and the ex would ever "reconcile" after 20 years and after her marriage to her present husband.
And I think it's reasonable in a few, well-defined cases, to entrust the Petition to the pastor, who actually knows Sally and her husband and their child personally, and is the one responsible for their pastoral care.
My opinion, free to all comers and worth every penny!