In his latest essay, Chris Friel shows how the police and Cardinal Pell’s accuser had to desperately patch up his original story to deal with a great gap that became obvious over time. But the fabric of the accuser’s concoction has become so torn and frayed that no patching is possible. Again, this is appalling and explosive stuff. If the High Court does not uphold Cardinal Pell’s appeal in five minutes, they, too, will be the laughing stock of the legal world – here and abroad.
Locating the Wine in the Alcove
Chris S Friel
In this note I shall assess the evidence regarding the claim that Pell’s complainant had prior knowledge of the Priests’ Sacristy, in particular, that he could locate the place where the wine was stored. On the face of it, the claim has not been challenged, but I shall argue that it is almost certainly false.
Thus, in his recent submission to the High Court Bret Walker acknowledges that “he was correct that the wine was located in a particular corner,”i a point that Walker diminishes on the grounds that he might have gained such knowledge from a tour.
Again, the point had been raised by the Crown in their submission under factual matters of contention (11) that the complainant “described entering the Priests’ Sacristy just before the first incident and finding a wood panelled area containing cupboards and finding a storage kitchenette. It was in this area that he and the other boy found wine.”ii It was further claimed that he had correctly described the layout, and that this was out of view.
The majority, too, had made the same point, something they found striking. They had not actually viewed the initial police statement made in June 2015, but nevertheless they opine: