Keith Windshuttle is an historian who gets quite a lot of criticism as he is reagded as "right wing".

But he makes some very fine points about the Pell appeal mainly that inconsistencies in the claimants case ( wrong dates- changed facts etc) were used by the two Judges who did not pass the appeal to basically bolster the claimants case yet the many witnesses in Pell's defence who may have made the odd mistake..it was used against them.

Now it's been announced that Pell is appealing to the High Court so the matter goes on.

The chances are much fairer in the High Court in Canberra in the ACT where State politician machinations are avoided.

And Windshuttle points out 2 relevant facts: the 2 Judges who condemned Pell had no previous experience in criminal matters while the dissenting Judge Mark Weinberg has life-long experience in criminal law and was a former Director of Public Prosecutions and is one of Victoria's most highly regarded judges.

## Pell's conviction was a class case of Trawling when the (corrupt) Victorian Police fed the media that they were investigating Pell even though not a single person had made a complaint about him.

quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/08/doub...the-court-of-appeal/

Double Standards in the Court of Appeal

'Two judges have had no previous experience in criminal matters'

An extraordinary claim - not raised by the defence!

Chief Justice Anne Fergusson, for example, has been involved in criminal law for 30 years (having earned degrees in Australia and the UK) - and has been a judge for a decade.

Like her husband is.

The problem here wasn't the court - but the laws it had to follow, pertaining to uncoloberated evidence.

Barney wrote:
'Two judges have had no previous experience in criminal matters'

An extraordinary claim - not raised by the defence!

Chief Justice Anne Fergusson, for example, has been involved in criminal law for 30 years (having earned degrees in Australia and the UK) - and has been a judge for a decade.

Like her husband is.

The problem here wasn't the court - but the laws it had to follow, pertaining to uncoloberated evidence.




you meddlesome thing..but yes you are right..my mistake. Odd as I never make them.

Justice Weinberg's summary is pretty fascinating and worth a read (twice as long as the other two) where he gives his reasons why the conviction should have been overturned.

It's telling that he gave media interviews about it so he must feel strongly.

Pell is now appealing to the High Court in Canberra. That's an entire different kettle of fish and they often demolish State court results as I mentioned in their over-turning of a NSW State decison that the police could not be sued for malicious prosecution.

2 cases have now gone forward..the win as I mentioned in the woman wrongly jailed where the NSW Government caved in and gave her a $6M settlement and the rather senstaional case where a former chauffeur of a high profile stock broker had his murder convicton over-turned but lost a malicious prosecution case.

The High Court prides itself on being free of nefarious state influences.

thewest.com.au/news/nsw/former-rene-rivk...b9f439bdeb80ef7b9888

Former Rene Rivkin chauffeur Gordon Wood loses lawsuit after acquittal of Caroline Byrne murder

corroborated*....even

Yes Hedda

Weingerg said that Pell had been required to show the 'impossibility' of his guilt - rather than the usual 'beyond reasonable doubt'

And that the accusations were based on the narrative of just one individual - whilst about 20 people denied that the acts could have occurred

Canberra though will be the final frontier...