she can still appeal this decision
She can appeal, it's important to remember that appeals can only be on the basis of a mistake of law. So for example, if the judge of the case permitted the prosecution to present evidence that he shouldn't have allowed, or if it's determined that his jury instructions were heavily biased, that might get up on appeal.
An appeal can usually not decide that the jury was just wrong in terms of which evidence they decided was more persuasive than others. Based on the information that's public so far, there's almost zero chance of a successful appeal. Just because you or I, or even a High Court judge would have (based on media reporting of the evidence) decided it didn't meet the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt", isn't sufficient for an overturning of the jury's decision.
The media hasn't been allowed to report on decisions made by the judge while the jury wasn't in the room (which may have included discussions about whether particular evidence is admissible) while the trial was still ongoing to prevent potentially tainting the jury. Now that it's over we might begin to learn that sort of thing. That's where appealable factors might be hiding.
Pell seems to put doubt into this, and frankly created an enormous amount of distrust in the legal system's ability to hold power to account. There's some very shaky legal argumentation behind it (basically: the defence presented evidence that, if accepted, would necessarily result in a finding of not guilty, and the prosecution did not specifically do anything to try to refute that evidence)
