Religion Pell Guilty!

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I'm trying to find the direct quotes were Portelli said he was with him on the days in question. Can you help me out please Bruce.

I can’t. It was canvassed early on the first day of the appeal. Then referenced late on the second day.

 

[GuruJane]

I'm trying to find the direct quotes were Portelli said he was with him on the days in question. Can you help me out please Bruce.

I'm not sure anyone has access to the transcript - which is the only accurate way of knowing. Not by press reports.

 

[Lebbo73]

Also Bruce, I find it highly improbable that no-one would remember talking to Pell on the steps of the Cathedral.

Most of them would be dead

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Most of them would be dead

Well that’s true too. Younger Micks with families would tend to go to their local. It’s a pretty elderly crowd that have the time and inclination to venture into the cathedral on a Sunday.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'm sure if they had been able to narrow the dates down to the weeks leading up to Christmas 1996, they would have had thousands. Especially if they'd advertised. As it was, the alleged dates weren't given as then until the trial. Initially, they were in 1997.

The defence had tons of time to hunt them out before the 2nd trial, if they existed.

 

[FredLeDeux]

That’s not right, SK.

The prosecution must actually disprove the alibi.

This is at the absolute heart of why the appeal will be upheld. And it was referred to a number of times at the appeal hearing.

And it also goes a long way to explaining Boyce’s difficulty in responding to the direct (and a touch unfair) question “If we accept Portelli as an honest and credible witness then we must acquit, do you agree?” Those weren’t the exact words.

The reason it’s an unfair question is that it’s a given, and they were essentially asking Boyce to concede the case. Perhaps to demonstrate to the public that they have no choice.

Here’s a good explanation...

https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/alibi.html

As Maxwell pointed out several times, and as Walker conceded, it wasn't a true "alibi" defence.
Those legal principles are not applicable.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Ah I see. You’re missing one small bit. Portelli did give direct evidence that he was on the steps with Pell on the days in question.

I can understand why you missed that because there was a lot about theoretical possibilities but Portelli did give that direct evidence.

As the prosecutor showed, Portelli's evidence moved from he would normally have been there (examination in chief) to he was there (Richter's cross-examination), back to he would normally have been there (re-examination).
After it retired, the jury expressly asked for and was given Portelli's evidence (transcript or video, I don't know). It follows that they looked at it and rejected it in favour of the complainant's evidence.
In the appeal, the prosecutor more or less expressly declined the bench's invitation to say that Portelli was deluded, or lying, or just trying to help Pell.
However, when Weinberg and Maxwell each asked him if Portelli's shift during Richter's questioning was because Portelli was "suggestible", he did not demur.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'm trying to find the direct quotes were Portelli said he was with him on the days in question. Can you help me out please Bruce.

Both counsel and Weinberg and Maxwell all said he did, during the appeal; Ferguson too, I think.

 

[skipper kelly]

Both counsel and Weinberg and Maxwell all said he did, during the appeal; Ferguson too, I think.

I'm not following Fred. So his evidence to the jury is that he was with him on the steps on the days in question, not that he usually would have been with him?

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'm not following Fred. So his evidence to the jury is that he was with him on the steps on the days in question, not that he usually would have been with him?

His evidence shifted during the trial; see 2 posts up.

 

[skipper kelly]

His evidence shifted during the trial; see 2 posts up.

Cheers. Thanks for the clarification. It will be interesting to see how the judges deal with that in their decision.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The defence had tons of time to hunt them out before the 2nd trial, if they existed.

Hunt them out or dig them up?

 

[skipper kelly]

As Maxwell pointed out several times, and as Walker conceded, it wasn't a true "alibi" defence.
Those legal principles are not applicable.

I must have been in a coma when I was listening to the live stream. Thanks for your contributions.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Hunt them out or dig them up?

You must be effing kidding if you think I'm going to discuss resurrection with you.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Cheers. Thanks for the clarification. It will be interesting to see how the judges deal with that in their decision.

It didn’t shift. He conceded it was theoretically possible for him not to accompany Pell but he stuck by the fact of him being at his side on the dates.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You must be effing kidding if you think I'm going to discuss resurrection with you.

Oh come on. This could be your moment!

 

[FredLeDeux]

It didn’t shift. He conceded it was theoretically possible for him not to accompany Pell but he stuck by the fact of him being at his side on the dates.

Didn't hear the bench raise any objections when Boyce went through the 3 stages by reference to the transcript.
Apart from querying whether he was saying Portelli was "suggestible".

 

[FredLeDeux]

Oh come on. This could be your moment!

Could be Big George's moment, his first step on the road to canonisation if he pulls it off.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Could be Big George's moment, his first step on the road to canonisation if he pulls it off.

Fred sees the light!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Didn't hear the bench raise any objections when Boyce went through the 3 stages by reference to the transcript.
Apart from querying whether he was saying Portelli was "suggestible".

One doesn’t do objections at an appeal hearing.

 

[FredLeDeux]

One doesn’t do objections at an appeal hearing.

One asks follow-up questions.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

One asks follow-up questions.

You don’t think they’d bashed Boyce enough?

 

[FredLeDeux]

You don’t think they’d bashed Boyce enough?

No more than any prosecutor would expect in a jury-verdict appeal; by the very nature of the beast, he always gets more challenges thrown at him than does the defence, he's the one who has to almost re-prove the case, and (though it didn't happen much in this case), he is usually the one also put to the test of legally/factually supporting the judge's decisions and charge.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

No more than any prosecutor would expect in a jury-verdict appeal; by the very nature of the beast, he always gets more challenges thrown at him than does the defence, he's the one who has to almost re-prove the case, and (though it didn't happen much in this case), he is usually the one also put to the test of legally/factually supporting the judge's decisions and charge.

They both very carefully and eloquently avoided criticism of Judge Kidd.

I guess we’re at the disadvantage of not seeing Portlell’s evidence. Gibson had 2 cracks at him, Richter just the one. But it seemed clear to me that whilst Portelli conceded the theoretical possibility of leaving Pell (presumably with another attendant because he still has to get out of his gear) he didn’t at any stage in the period in question and was able to reference why he was so certain of that.

 

[FredLeDeux]

They both very carefully and eloquently avoided criticism of Judge Kidd.

Probably a good move, seeing as how it was the Court of Appeal which recommended Kidd for the job as Chief Judge.

I guess we’re at the disadvantage of not seeing Portlell’s evidence. Gibson had 2 cracks at him, Richter just the one. But it seemed clear to me that whilst Portelli conceded the theoretical possibility of leaving Pell (presumably with another attendant because he still has to get out of his gear) he didn’t at any stage in the period in question and was able to reference why he was so certain of that.

You're right, we don't know exactly what Portelli said, or even his explanation. The C/A will decide whether or not it prefers the complainant's evidence to that of Portelli, as the jury apparently did.

We shall all just have to wait and see.