The Cardinal

As overseas sources had already indicated, it turns out Cardinal George Pell was convicted on one of the trials of child sex abuse.

I have never followed the story behind these charges all that closely, but the circumstances of this particular charge did always sound somewhat implausible to me.   The suggestion today seems to be that the defence team's decision to not have Pell give evidence worked strongly against him in the mind of the jury.  It does seem a surprising decision - I would not have expected that emphatic denials that anything like that happened could go too far wrong, even for someone who tends to sound a bit pompous.  OK, delete "a bit" - just "pompous".

My suspicion has long been that "star" barristers are not as effective as people like to think they are.  I see from the reports that Robert Richter QC used a Powerpoint presentation at trial:  people are so sick of that format, maybe that hurt the defence case!:

Richter used a PowerPoint presentation in the retrial during his closing address to the jurors, something he did not do in the first. One of the slides read: “Only a madman would attempt to rape two boys in the priests’ sacristy immediately after Sunday solemn mass.” 

Anyway, surely it isn't wise for anyone to be carrying on too much about this matter until it has gone to appeal - either Andrew Bolt in support of, or David Marr against, the Cardinal?   Just let the appeal process makes its path towards a clearer, final outcome is before us, hey?  

Update:  Frank Brennan details the reasons he was very surprised at the verdict.   Those like Marr who are acting like this is the end of the matter and that Pell is forever condemned are the ones at the most risk of looking foolish at the end of the day.