The result of Pell's appeal against his conviction for child sexual abuse - is still awaited.

But, the video of first police interview has been released - in which the charges were initially put to him.

His utter dismay, anguish and bewilderment were palpable.

With the result (for what it's worth), I'm convinced of his innocence.

Barney wrote:
The result of Pell's appeal against his conviction for child sexual abuse - is still awaited.

But, the video of first police interview has been released - in which the charges were initially put to him.

His utter dismay, anguish and bewilderment were palpable.

With the result (for what it's worth), I'm convinced of his innocence.




I got the impression earlier that you were convinced of his guilt.
Is it just seeing the interview that changed your mind?

I have forgotten the details of the accusations now, but I remember thinking some sounded a bit far fetched.

There was no screaming, histrionics, extreme reaction - or dramatic response to the charges.

Just abject horror, disillusionment and repulsion - to unfounded allegations Pell couldn't fully comprehend.

I'm no Vatican City fan - but this gentleman has been set up, for whatever reason. Watch the video.

Barney wrote:
But, the video of first police interview has been released - in which the charges were initially put to him.

His utter dismay, anguish and bewilderment were palpable.

With the result (for what it's worth), I'm convinced of his innocence.


Barney, do you think that something as serious as taking away a man's freedom should turn on an impression of a stranger's demeanour?

This is what most of the Anglophone world has in most so-called sex crime prosecutions: Little or no evidence either way (although in Cardinal Pell's trial there was plenty of evidence in his favour), and a jury expected to guess which stranger might be telling the truth. Without corroborating evidence, a verdict beyond reasonable doubt can't be reached, almost by definition. Prosecuting people - mostly men - without any supporting evidence is a dangerous and, in my view deliberate, subversion of the presumption of innocence.

Randall wrote:
Barney wrote:
But, the video of first police interview has been released - in which the charges were initially put to him.

His utter dismay, anguish and bewilderment were palpable.

With the result (for what it's worth), I'm convinced of his innocence.


Barney, do you think that something as serious as taking away a man's freedom should turn on an impression of a stranger's demeanour?

This is what most of the Anglophone world has in most so-called sex crime prosecutions: Little or no evidence either way (although in Cardinal Pell's trial there was plenty of evidence in his favour), and a jury expected to guess which stranger might be telling the truth. Without corroborating evidence, a verdict beyond reasonable doubt can't be reached, almost by definition. Prosecuting people - mostly men - without any supporting evidence is a dangerous and, in my view deliberate, subversion of the presumption of innocence.


Would the jury see the interview ? I suppose if it is freely available on the internet they might have a look anyway.

Randall wrote:
Barney, do you think that something as serious as taking away a man's freedom should turn on an impression of a stranger's demeanour?


No - my post simply made a personal observation...