we all need to fear people who can tell a convincing story!
Which is what happened with claimant J, the jury and the first court of appeal.
The conviction was based solely on the perceived “credibility” of J.
The longer the passage of time between the imagined (or contrived) offence and the trial, the more the rules for trial and evidence for such a claim disadvantage the accused.
Pell was very, very,
very fortunate to have an alibi which covered 10 minutes on a day 20 years ago, and which, of course, he had no specific recollection of. Most people falsely accused in similar circumstances would have no such good fortune, and would be a sitting duck for the “person who can tell a convincing story”, especially in a climate of sympathy for them and enmity to the accused.
If the defendant gives evidence then the jury will have their side of the story to consider as well.
How can a person have a “side of the story” for ten minutes on a day twenty years ago when they were just going about their business, completely unaware that in the distant future someone unknown to them will accuse them of a heinous crime during that ten minutes?
All most of us could say is “I don’t remember what I was doing then, but I didn’t do it” against a powerful, traumatic, and convincing, but
utterly false, story.
Pell did not take the stand at trial, as he is entitled to, and is common in criminal trials.
In the other famous Australian case of a miscarriage of justice, the two defendants Lindy Chamberlain and Michael Chamberlain each took the stand in their defence, told the truth, and were not believed by the jury. They were convicted of murdering their own child… This was also over a matter of ten to twenty minutes, with little corroborating evidence.
Ultimately, it comes down to credibility; that is, deciding whether something has the ring of truth about it - something which pretty much everyone has experience in doing as part of their every day lives.
And that is where Pell was convicted of a serious crime he didn’t commit, and anyone else could be as well. Most, however, wouldn’t have the good fortune of an airtight alibi from decades ago.
The problem of uncorroborated evidence in historical charges of sexual assault is very serious, and an innocent accused is at a strong disadvantage.
This case tells us we need to do something about this quickly, or all of us (or our children) be prepared to face a serious but false accusation in decades time, especially if we become successful and prominent in life (although Lindy Chamberlain was not such). I could add “politics/religion” to this, but the winds which currently disadvantage one side may well change through 180 degrees.
