As I mentioned earlier, some strange aspects to the case, particularly in relation to defense evidence that wasn't admitted. That's why I suspect an appeal will succeed.Having not been in the Court, and therefore not privy to all of the evidence, I can't make a judgement about the jury's verdict.There were two juries; the first one couldn't reach a verdict and was dismissed.
I agree with you about Richter, he's an incredibly clever lawyer and wouldn't have wanted his client on the stand - although it's not uncommon for the accused person to not testify at all.If an accused will not actively defend himself, what does this imply? Let's take just one example:- it was claimed by the defence that Pell could not have been in the Sacristy alone because it is the custom to have another priest there as well. This is their usual practice, but is only theory in this context. By not giving sworn evidence, Pell did not state that another priest was actually present, or deny that he was alone. I'd wonder why.Again, my reservation is that we're talking about a Cathedral after high mass, it wasn't a little country church or a quiet suburban service, there would have been people everywhere and there would have been a routine for everyone to follow. Pell as Bishop is pretty much the focus of the entire ceremony, didn't anyone notice that both him and the thirteen year old choir boys were missing for a while?
Not saying he's innocent, just that I have reservations - especially given the fact that the first jury couldn't reach a verdict.