Over two days in Melbourne, lawyers put to the Victorian court of appeal arguments about whether George Pell’s convictions should be put aside. David Marr and Melissa Davey highlight the most interesting discussions from the court and ask some key questions: did Pell’s defence fail because his team argued it was impossible for the crimes to be committed? Did the prosecution fail to sing the praises of the role of the jury? What must the three judges be thinking? • David Marr: after a train wreck of a day, George Pell’s fate hinges on alibi evidence