Hi Piste Skier,
Playing Devil's advocate, a unanimous verdict doesn't make it correct. Verdicts are overturned on appeal all of the time. For example, a judge can decide that a verdict is unreasonable or not supported by the evidence. Having entered a not guilty plea, I'm tipping Pell will appeal.
This is why I was interested to hear what other evidence was presented in the trial. Upon reading the link below, it seems the alleged victim's testimony was the only evidence offered. In the current climate of #believewomen, various hoaxes etc, I have to say that personally, I believe supporting evidence. How else can you decipher the truth beyond a reasonable doubt if two people are telling differing versions of events?
Given the understandable hatred that much of the public holds for the Church, could a jury execute their duties in an unbiased fashion and apply the law properly? You only have to read this thread to see that in the eyes of many Pell was guilty before the trial had started.
This gives a detailed run down;
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564The appeal will be interesting.
Cheers!
