As many in the Catholic blogosphere are probably well aware, an Australian appellate court has dismissed Cardinal Pell's appeal of his conviction. Julia Yost, of First Things, at the New York Post , offers a stinging rebuke of the Australian legal system. For many legal experts and especially for those who know Cardinal Pell, that system has thus far been found inadequate to the task of safeguarding truth and justice. The dissenting appellate judge noted: (T)he sole accuser’s wholly uncorroborated testimony 'contained discrepancies, displayed inadequacies and otherwise lacked probative value.' Probative: "having the quality or function of proving or demonstrating something; affording proof or evidence." If that be the case, how then did the other judges arrive at their decision to dismiss Cardinal Pell's appeal? A question for legal minds. Father Raymond De Souza, at the National Catholic Register , writes: The charges against Cardinal P