People in pubs saying that Pell is guilty are as reliable as people in pubs saying he's innocent. They're entitled to their views, but it's not a reliable test of fact.
Interesting speculation, but it has no particular bearing on the facts of the case.
Corroboration of evidence seems to me to have been central to our judicial system for centuries.
If your assertion is right about non corroboration in particular and its role in the judicial system in general, then an appeal should be a 'Lay Down Misere'. Time will tell.
Time may prove you essentially correct in your assessment but, to me, relying on the 'pub test' to get to the truth doesn't pass the 'pub test'.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »