Well the finding doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. It means that the evidence didn’t demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So it was on a matter of law particularly the court of appeal.
There could be a civil case in this with a much lower burden of proof.
Exactly - the statement which the High Court has put out clearly states the reason for their decision. Quoting from the last paragraph of it:
The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant’s evidence as
thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents.
I’m preferring the reporters and newsreaders who are presenting the facts while still leaving commentators to present opinion and perhaps express their feelings (such as disappointment) .
Bolt already out misconstruing the High Court verdict:
I’m not looking to engage in a lengthy debate here. But what you are essentially saying is when he was guilty, he was guilty, but now that he’s been acquitted he could still be guilty?
I get your point. But the final decision in the eyes of the legal system, is that he is not guilty. We have to accept that.
Obviously this decision will take precedence over coronavirus today, the media awaiting his release from prison.
The court does not rule on innocence. It rules on whether guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Pell may be innocent, but that is not a verdict the court can come to.
Sevens coverage coming out of Melbourne. Is this live in WA?
I’m assuming the morning show is still being broadcast for WA viewers later on.
No the decision from the High Court said the evidence was not suffient to get a guilty verdict. A high court would never say that the alleged victims were lying.
Sigh.
Pell should try and distance himself from this man.
Technically he still could have done it. The court has ruled as a matter of law there was reasonable doubt. I am not saying whether he did it or not. I am saying that he could have done it. The court has not ruled on his guilt or otherwise.
Seven’s coverage with Mike Amor ended at 11:30am going to national Morning News with Ann Sanders.
Regardless of the decision, a number of civil cases are due to be launched against Cardinal Pell, either by people who alleged they were abused by him or who allege he did nothing to prevent their abuse at the hands of other priests.
The father of one of the boys who George Pell was originally convicted of abusing has previously vowed to pursue the Catholic Church and Cardinal Pell for damages.
Yes this was live into WA. 7 was the only one I think who took it live. It finished at 9:30 and went straight to the end of Sunrise but we still got a 10 second glimpse at the morning news.
Extended special edition of Seven Morning News for coverage of Pell’s release from prison.
But Pell has been found not guilty by the court as he has been acquitted. Acquittal means not guilty.
Studio 10 continuing past midday AEST
Seven, Nine, ABC and Sky seem to have a pooled helicopter vision while 10’s looks different.
I dont think there is anything sad about it, if he is innocent of this specific charge then it is just a case of “right person, wrong crime.”
He is an evil man based on things he has done that he spoke openly about during the royal commission. Made worse by him speaking about it as if there was nothing wrong.