- Banned
- #2,926
I can’t. It was canvassed early on the first day of the appeal. Then referenced late on the second day.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Religion Pell Guilty!
- Thread starter Colonial
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
I can’t. It was canvassed early on the first day of the appeal. Then referenced late on the second day.
I'm not sure anyone has access to the transcript - which is the only accurate way of knowing. Not by press reports.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 20,738
- 23,372
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Most of them would be dead
- Banned
- #2,929
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.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
The defence had tons of time to hunt them out before the 2nd trial, if they existed.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
As Maxwell pointed out several times, and as Walker conceded, it wasn't a true "alibi" defence.
Those legal principles are not applicable.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
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.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
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?
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
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.
- Banned
- #2,937
Hunt them out or dig them up?
I must have been in a coma when I was listening to the live stream. Thanks for your contributions.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
You must be effing kidding if you think I'm going to discuss resurrection with you.
- Banned
- #2,940
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.
- Banned
- #2,941
You must be effing kidding if you think I'm going to discuss resurrection with you.
Oh come on. This could be your moment!
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
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".
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Could be Big George's moment, his first step on the road to canonisation if he pulls it off.
- Banned
- #2,944
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Banned
- #2,945
One doesn’t do objections at an appeal hearing.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
One asks follow-up questions.
- Banned
- #2,947
You don’t think they’d bashed Boyce enough?
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
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.
- Banned
- #2,949
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.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Probably a good move, seeing as how it was the Court of Appeal which recommended Kidd for the job as Chief Judge.
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.
- Status
