Here’s something I missed on my first pass of #Pell judgment: Defence tried to argue Court of Appeal should not see video of J’s evidence (that is, what jury saw). I think that’s extraordinarily telling: The defence didn’t want them to see what jury had: that he was believable.
And of course, this came from a pricey defence team whose client exercised his (legal) right not to give evidence at trial.
So yes, jury’s instructed not to read anything into him remaining schtum while his counsel tries to demolish witness who alleges was raped as a child. But in light of that decision, attempt to deprive their Honours of seeing how complainant presented to jury is Quite. Something.
Oh and for the doubters: 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
