Anyone tempted to believe George Pell did what he was convicted of doing should read first the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal majority (“Judgment”), next the fuller transcript of the complainant’s allegations that is given in paras. Here’s the proof all laid out by a highly lettered Australian Barrister. As to the second fact: the complainant’s testimony in no way suggested that Pell had entered to disrobe; it just said [44] ([432]) he entered, “planted himself in the doorway” (the doors of the sacristy from the corridor leading back to the sanctuary, aisles and nave) and challenged the boys. Para. Summarised by the Dissent in para. His challenge will be to enthuse his conservative base to reelect the state’s two incumbent senators, David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler.After that?Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda will be codified as his party’s own. Currently, Trump-affiliated lawyers claim they can prove their bombshell allegations of historic voting fraud by leftists and foreign interests. There is some erudite philosopher commenting on every single thought word and deed of the Vatican these days. Here, then, is one shorter route. They further claim that Trump was robbed not of a close election but of a veritable landslide, constituting the greatest scandal in U.S. history.But so far none of these advocates have produced the requisite whistleblowers, computer data or forensic evidence to prove their astounding charges. The defence had presented [60] the three matters in a rational and cumulatively inter-connected sequence: (A) the testimony’s improbability both inherently and as given with inconsistencies, opportunistic embellishments, and sheer mistakes, (B) its impossibility as demonstrated by much counter-evidence, and (C) the appropriate conclusions: the testimony, however “compelling” as delivered [59], [87], [90], is certainly false, or most probably false, and, at any rate, the possibility of its falsity is so real that the jury should have doubted it, and Pell in both law and justice should have been acquitted. 140, the Judgment remarks that the concepts of alibi, impossibility and (lack of) opportunity are “of course, closely inter-connected.”  But it goes on to say that the defence at the trial had (at least in its closing) avoided the word “alibi”, had asked the trial judge not to use it, and [141] had not asked for a direction to the jury in the form appropriate to alibi defences. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! [95], and by the fact, “more striking still”, that because of redecorating works, the Archbishop was, unusually, having to robe and disrobe in that sacristy – the Priests’ Sacristy – rather than in the adjoining one reserved to his use [96]. He is also a distinguished authority in other areas of law, particularly constitutional law and medical law, and his work in these areas has been cited by the UK Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. His Middle East and China resets will unlikely be altered by future presidents.Trump finally did close the border to illegal immigration. On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 4:04 PM ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP wrote: > abyssum posted: ” Where the Pell Judgment Went Fatally Wrong – Quadrant > Online > https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/09/where-the-pell-judgment-went-fatally-wrong/ > Where the Pell Judgment Went Fatally Wrong 8th September 2019 John Finnis > Anyone tempte” >. 151. PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCES A TREMENDOUS BUS TOUR TO TAKE PLACE OVER THE NEXT MONTH, A PRAYER OF DELIVERANCE FOR PRESIDENT Donald Trump, INFOGRAPHICS OF Sidney Powell GEORGIA LAWSUIT, The Catholic Monitor is greatly honored to post, with permission, this summary report of the most influential conservative Catholic journal in the United Kingdom, the Christian Order, by its editor Rod Pead. 296 (here quoted in full, with emphases, exclamations and interpolations added):The effect of the servers’ evidence was that the unlocking of the Sacristy door, and their bowing to the Crucifix [inside that Sacristy, to mark the end of their procession duties and the beginning of their altar duties], occurred soon after the procession [to the west door and then back, whether inside or outside, to the east end] finishedand that, by the time they returned [from the Sacristy!] The effect, despite its routine preliminary affirmations that the defence has no onus [65] (also [129]), is clear: to place on the defence the burden of proving the testimony false, the onus, that is to say, of (in one of the Judgment’s several erroneous formulations) “establishing the certainty which the [defence’s] argument of impossibility asserted” [131]. But the Judgment [64], in reversing the sequence, also practically eliminated the inter-connections and cumulation, that is, the rational bearing of (B) on (A), and of (A) and (B) together on (C). He would then return to the sanctuary to gather up the sacred vessels and – sometimes with the assistance of the altar servers – would take them back to the Priests’ Sacristy.Thus the prosecution’s and the Judgment’s theory rests entirely on (i) accepting, “of course”,  Potter’s somewhat disputed evidence that sanctuary clearing (and the resultant traffic to and from the Priests’ Sacristy) was delayed for five or six minutes after the end of Mass (to permit parishioners’ private prayer), while simultaneously  (ii) overlooking the necessary implications of another integral part of his same account, a part disputed by no other witness and stated without a qualm in para. Biolchini Family Emeritus Professor of Law. By treating falsity as a distinct argument (rather than a conclusion from other arguments) – and also by treating it before improbability and impossibility – the Judgment displays deep confusion about the case’s basic logic, aborts its own rational consideration of the defence, and effectively reverses the onus of proof.