In a matter of weeks Australia’s most senior Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, will know whether he will stand trial to face allegations of historical sexual offences. The magistrate Belinda Wallington adjourned Melbourne magistrates court on the eve of the Easter long weekend, bringing the four-week committal hearing to a close. She will now need to decide if there is enough evidence to order the matter go to trial. Along with a media pack, Pell supporters – one of whom left an Easter egg on the cardinal’s courtroom chair on Thursday – as well as his detractors were there to bear witness to the final days of cross-examination.

Pell’s defence barrister, Robert Richter QC, has spent much of the past fortnight arguing that the evidence against his client is uncorroborated and unreliable. Even senior detectives appeared to falter at times when faced with questioning from Richter, a formidable defence barrister known for his loud and theatrical interrogation style.

Cardinal George Pell: court told archbishop robes could not be easily removed Read more

When Richter asked Snr Const David Rae for notes taken during initial conversations with complainants, the police officer replied that it was not his practice to take notes down in the first instance. It was an admission Richter described to the court as “appalling”. Richter also revealed that police had not executed search warrants for church archives that might have helped them to place Pell’s movements at the times the offences were alleged to have occurred. Detective Chris Reed told the court: “I didn’t know where the archives were.” Richter, forensic in his attention to detail, had found the information, and claims police should have obtained it themselves.

He used this information to make a few central arguments. One was that it would have been “impossible” for Pell to have committed offences against two choirboys after Sunday mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996, allegedly while dressed in his full priest regalia. Records, Richter claims, show that Pell only gave Sunday mass on two occasions in 1996. Numerous former choirboys and church staff have given evidence that Pell was always surrounded by people on those occasions and assisted to robe and disrobe, which Richter said would make it difficult for him to be alone with two boys in the priest’s sacristy, where the offending is alleged to have occurred. Richter also tried to discredit claims that Pell offended against the two boys after moving his robes to the side, arguing that this would be impossible owing to the 3kg weight of the outfit, and because the robes did not have slits up the sides.

Pell sat each day in courtroom 22 on level five of Melbourne magistrates court in the same seat, head bowed, sometimes taking notes, always dressed in the same outfit; black pants, black shirt and a beige jacket. His friend and director of communications for the Archdiocese of Sydney, Katrina Lee, sat in the court with him most days, one row behind him, one seat to his left. Occasionally, Pell looked up at the witnesses. Apart from being softly asked the occasional question by Richter – who is a progressive atheist – or accepting well wishes from supporters before court began each day, Pell was largely silent.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Robert Richter, Pell’s lawyer, outside court on Thursday. Photograph: Con Chronis/AFP/Getty Images

Former church staff, including the former choirmaster, and former choirboys were all cross-examined, with Richter gathering detailed evidence about who had access to rooms within the cathedral, whether swipe cards or keys were needed, who would have had access to those, and whether it would be noticed if two boys had disappeared after mass. Two missing boys would be noticed, Richter argued, because on the two occasions Pell was at the cathedral giving mass, the choir had a rehearsal scheduled for immediately afterwards. Richter argued that staff and choirboys would remember if two boys had been missing owing to the regimented nature of the procession and rehearsals, and also that there was not enough time between mass and rehearsal for anything untoward to occur. Some witnesses disagreed with this assertion, however, saying it was possible that two boys might disappear for a time unnoticed, or for choir rehearsal to start late.

The court also heard allegations that Pell sexually offended during the screening of the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind in Ballarat in 1978 and that he offended at a Ballarat swimming pool in the 1970s. Richter suggested that if such offending had occurred in these public places, it would have been seen or heard. Detective Reed responded to the suggestion by saying: “I don’t think I have ever been involved in a child sexual assault matter where someone has seen the event.”

There were attempts, too, by Richter to discredit witnesses owing to their history of mental illness or crime. He accused an advocate from the organisation Broken Rites of attempting to “big note” himself by coming forward with allegations against Pell on behalf of a complainant. He accused family members of complainants of making details up, or of only making allegations about Pell after seeing a report about him on the ABC’s 7.30 program. He implied some complainants were first and foremost seeking compensation.

George Pell allegedly exposed himself to choir boy, court hears Read more

But much of the hearing – and Wallington’s decision – hinges on evidence neither the media nor public were privy to. Those who made complaints against Pell were cross-examined in the first week and a half of the hearing, which was held behind closed doors. This is not unusual in cases involving sexual offence allegations, and serves to protect alleged victims from being put on public display. But with much of the hearing closed to media, and details of the charges unable to be reported for legal reasons, journalists were forced to omit detail and explanation from their reports. What has been left to report, then, is Richter’s cross-examination of witnesses who were not the accusers.

From what has unfolded in the open court, it is clear there have been a few blows to prosecutors. One of their witnesses has died. Another has withdrawn from the case citing serious illness. Another made a fresh statement to police, which means his statement will now be withdrawn and considered separately as part of a new investigation.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest The ABC journalist Louise Milligan outside court on Tuesday. Photograph: Luis Ascui/EPA

It was also revealed that a witness who made allegations about Pell in a formal police statement later made different allegations during an interview with the ABC journalist Louise Milligan. Despite these discrepancies, police did not reinterview the witness, the court heard.

Wallington is highly experienced in such matters – she is the supervising magistrate for sexual offences. She is unlikely to be swayed by descriptions by Richter of one witness as a “nutter” or of others as being unreliable because of time spent in psychiatric wards. As Milligan told Richter during her cross-examination on Wednesday: “People who have a criminal trajectory and a trajectory of drug abuse and alcoholism and other ways which they go off the rails … that is precisely the trajectory of little children who were abused.

George Pell hearing: ABC journalist defends sources in book about cardinal Read more

“They could be torn apart by people like you,” she told him. So heated was his questioning of Milligan that at one point Wallington reminded Richter to act with respect.

Wallington was especially unmoved when Richter called on the magistrate to “disqualify herself from hearing this matter on the basis of a biased view of the evidence”. Wallington calmly responded: “Your application is refused.” The case continued, and Richter moved on.

It was three weeks full of tension, theatre and at times, tedium, as the layout of St Patrick’s Cathedral was interrogated over and over again. There was also a steady group of pro- and anti-Pell types holding placards outside the court each day. But it will be nothing compared with the media frenzy and glare on the cardinal and the complainants that will eventuate if the matter goes to trial.