Reading through the High Court of Australia's Pell decision. As a layman w/ interest but no legal qualifications whatever
https://jade.io/article/724774 
It has 129 sections.
(thread)
1-10. Procedural history, the court's proper role in hearing this case
1/

11-14. Layout of the Cathedral, locations of the rooms involved in the allegations, Pell's habit of greeting people on the steps for 10-30 minutes after solemn mass
15-21. Allegations, in detail. Assault in vestry, on 2 occasions 1 month apart, by Pell 'in full regalia'
2/

22-26. Only dates Pell served mass at the Cathedral that fit the allegations are 12/15/1996, 12/22/1996 & 2/23/1997. Prosecution alleged the 2 latter dates were the dates of the assaults. Pell denied allegations, citing his routine and entourage
3/

27-29. Prosecution received permission to cross-examine some of their own witnesses whose evidence conflicted with the prosecution's theory of the case
30. Prosecution made case to jury that all evidence together left a realistic possibility the assaults had occurred
4/

31. Trial judge instructed jury on Pell's disadvantage in defending vs 20 year old allegations
32-39. This court believes the (lower, first) Court of Appeal erred in viewing recorded witness testimony, this is inconsistent with an appeal's court's role
5/

40-42. On viewing the recorded testimony, the (lower) Court of Appeal found the accuser a compellig witness. The defense alleged the allegations were impossible, and the lower court allowed possible/impossible to become a main focus of the trial. Cites J. Weinberg's dissent
6/

43-49. The Court of Appeals' determination that the accuser was credible drove them to ask (erroneously) whether his evidence could still be true in the face of contrary testimony. Proper question was whether it was reasonably possible that his evidence was *not* true.
7/

50-53. Court of Appeal erroneously cited certain facts as independent corroboration of the allegation. The facts were not corroborative, and did not increase the likelihood of the allegations' being true.
8/

54. Pell submitted: Lower court erred in "asking whether there existed the reasonable possibility that [accuser]'s account was correct, rather than whether the prosecution had negatived the reasonable possibility that it was not."
(Looks like basic logical error to me.)
9/

54 cont'd. Pell submitted: Lower court's "conclusion that it was reasonably possible that [Pell] had not adhered to his practice on the date of the first incident necessarily carried with it acceptance that it was reasonably possible that he had." Therefore reasonable doubt.
10/

55-56. Pell's usual practice of greeting people for 10+ minutes after mass is not the only factor weighing against probability of accusations' truth. There is a "compounding effect of the improbability of events having occurred as [the accuser] described them"
11/

57-58. Three specifics for further analysis: if accusations are true, then (i) Pell did not remain on steps for 10+ minutes after mass, (ii) Pell returned alone to sacristy in full vestments, (iii) for 5-6 minute duration of assaults, no other person entered sacristy
12/

59-75. Testimony from multiple witnesses that Pell remained on Cathedral steps greeting people for long time, esp in December 1996, w/ large crowds for his first masses there. Despite pressing from prosecutors, witnesses denied that he ever remained for just a short time
13/

76-82. Testimony from multiple witnesses that Pell was never alone while vested, esp b/c the ceremony is not over until the archbishop removes his vestments. Never alone in sacristy. Someone's job involves sticking w/ him until vestments are removed & hung properly
14/

83-86. Sacristy & hallway outside it are "hive of activity" after mass, many comings/goings for up to 30 minutes.
"Neither Connor nor McGlone could recall any occasion on which the sacristy had been left unlocked and unattended. In Connor's experience, that never happened."
15/

87-91. Court of Appeal wrongly concluded that jury could discount uncontested testimony that Pell was definitely on steps for 10+ minutes Dec 15 & Dec 22. Judges should have taken into account Pell's disadvantage in answering 20yo allegations.
16/

92-93. Court of Appeal wrongly discounted evidence of regularity of Pell's habits on grounds that force of habit may obscure exceptions. Correct procedure is to give probative weight to well-established routines.
17/

94. Court of Appeal accepted "evidence of 4 witnesses in concluding not only that it was possible [Pell] was alone & robed in contravention of centuries-old church law, but that evidence of witnesses to the contrary did not raise a reasonable doubt as to [Pell's] guilt"
18/

95-100. Summary of evidence from the 4 witnesses, who variously report seeing Pell sometimes accompanied/alone, sometimes robed/not robed, in the sacristy corrdor. Some memories seem general & not specific.
19/

101-102. Prosecutors did not challenge the MC's testimony that he was with Pell for 15+ minutes after both December masses. Nor testimony that the Church requires the Abp to be accompanied while robed. "Slim" testimony of the 4 witnesses "no foundation" for disregarding.
20/

103-106. The lower court erred in accepting the 4 witnesses' testimony & ignoring the "powerful body of evidence" that Pell's habit of greeting congregants for 10+ minutes after mass was invariable. Analysis of weaknesses/gaps in the 4 witnesses' testimony.
21/

107-110. Logistical improbabilities of accusers' specific accusation. Difficult to find 5-6 minutes during which the sacristy & corridor outside it would have been empty of all people. Lower court concluded this was "possible," but this possibility is laden with problems.
22/

111. The lower court conflated 2 distinct time intervals: (a) the 5-6 minutes the sacristan allowed for private prayer before clearing the altar & taking the vessels to the sacristy & (b) the 5-6 minutes during which the alleged assault took place in the sacristy.
23/

112-117. The 5-6 min prayer time began during the recessional; by the time the accuser arrived in the sacristy, some of this time would already have passed. Where were the other altar servers during this interval? No evidence they were not returning to the sacristy as usual.
24/

118. Whatever the credibility of accuser's testimony, the lower court faced uncontested testimony that (i) Pell was on the Cathedral step for 10+ minutes at both December masses, (ii) Pell was always with the MC while vested, (iii) the sacristy corridor was full of activity
25/

119. Even accepting accuser's testimony as credible & compelling, the lower court should have asked whether the evidence in 118 "nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt. Plainly they did."
26/

119 cont'd. "Making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility in relation to charges one to four that an innocent person has been convicted."
27/

120-124. As to the 2nd incident, dated by prosecutors to Feb 1997, it involved Pell pinning a choirboy to a wall in the sacristy corridor, in full view of dozens of people, none of whom noticed it. This is so unlikely that it requires reasonable doubt.
28/

125-128. The 2nd incident allegation also falls to the same uncontested evidence in 118: that Pell's habit of staying on the steps for 10+ minutes was invariable, that he was always accompanied, and that the sacristy corridor was a hive of activity after mass.
29/

129. "For these reasons, [this court orders]: ... the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place."
30/

My comment: It looks like the prosecutors tried to prove that it was *possible* Pell did what he was accused of doing, but even this required ignoring evidence that the prosecutors did not attempt to impeach. Appeals court committed logical errors & conflated time periods.
31/

At some point the process became mostly about interpreting events & testimony to be compatible with the accuser's testimony, which was already accepted as compelling. This led to procedural errors, and is incompatible with the burden of proof & rights of defendants.
32/end