| Geoffrey Luck of Quadrant magazine has undertaken a very detailed analysis of documents relating to the Pell's case. First, he analysed explanations given by two Judges, Ferguson and Maxwell (calling them "the majority"), next he analyses the statement given by the "minority" Judge (Weinberg), otherwise called as "dissenting judge".
Fragment: No such lazy sentimentality from the dissenting judge, Mark Weinberg. In a landmark 215-page dissection of the case, he worked his way steadily through the evidence, establishing facts before weighing their import, and analysing the prosecution’s arguments step by step. It is what we should expect in an appeal as important as this.
And his conclusion is: How did two such diverse conclusions draw from the same appeal data? One answer might be that the majority decision was a political finding, tailored even subliminally to reflect the running current of public outrage at juvenile abuse. When it became clear that Justice Weinberg not only reached the opposite conclusion, but also put up a proper body of research and argument to support his view, the Chief Justice and the President decided that the matter would and should go to the High Court, and therefore detailed argument was unnecessary.
This is a must read! Please read the whole article:
Quadrant - just HERE
One of the Comments: The importance of this case should not be underestimated, since, if it is allowed to stand, will stand as precedence in future trials, effectively meaning that from now on anyone can accuse anyone of anything with no evidence to the affirmative, and in fact abundant evidence to the contrary, and expect a conviction so long as they can spin a good yarn.
| 
