The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 25th June - Trial Day 10, Week 3

[whatif?]

I'm a bit behind but Alioop doesn't appear to here with us on he forum, so hopefully that means she is there in court so will be able to explain is all to us soon, along with dear itsthevibe - and whatif are you there too?

No, I'm not there Thinking, decided not to and I'm kicking myself for it. :banghead:

 

[Makara]

I'm gob smacked that there has been no evidence, however circumstantial, to show that GBC was at the bridge that night, or early hours of the next morning. NOTHING!

 

[wewillgetyou]

Could someone please tell me how to refresh

 

[Janeumayer]

What I do not understand is this: The Crown's DNA expert said that she found partial DNA profile in two of Allison's left hand fingernails.

Let's understand this comparing a partial DNA strand to a winning lottery ticket. Let's say that Gerard's DNA strand has 6 numbers and let's say that the partial DNA strand has 3 numbers. Then the analyst can exclude or include him because she would be comparing the numbers she has to Gerard's numbers.

Let's say for example that Gerard's numbers are 1, 5, 12, 18, 24 & 58. Now let's say that the partial DNA numbers from the nails are 12, 24 & 58. This means that Gerard is a partial match to the partial DNA. Therefore he could have been included in the list of suspects.

Do you guys get my drift?

 

[Trooper]

this is a huge , crushing blow for the Baden-Clays.. huge, and really, .. so depressing for them, collectively and individually..


they probably had a lot riding on it, as I honestly believe they thought they had put up a good show on the stand, deftly explaining the trials and tribulations of Alison and her moods.. .

but the judge has decided that it wasn't Alisons moods that killed her..

 

[KG1]

The final admission was that Allison last had a script for anti-depressant medication on March 13, 2012.


t was also revealed Allison and Gerard Baden-Clay made no payments on their Westpac credit card between January 24 and May 30, 2012.

The minimum payment was $2406.

http://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/baden-clay-wanted-hush-hush-over-marital-woes/2299880/

Wow, must have been a hefty balance!

 

[Freya1977]

Thanks, Trooper, for explaining it in a way we can understand

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

I'm gob smacked that there has been no evidence, however circumstantial, to show that GBC was at the bridge that night, or early hours of the next morning. NOTHING!

Weird isnt it? What was the whole point of timeing the cars going around the roundabout and stopping drivers the next week to see if they had seen anything, making call outs in the media for people to come forward if they had seen the cars or anything unusual at the roundabout that night. And then no mention of it at trial? Would there be evidence tendered, that the jury sees, but that hasn't been cross examined or heard in court?

 

[Karo]

It appears that GBC is still being tried for murder and I do think prosecution has more to tell which will be made known when they question the defences witnesses.

 

[Trooper]

Weird isnt it? What was the whole point of timeing the cars going around the roundabout and stopping drivers the next week to see if they had seen anything, making call outs in the media for people to come forward if they had seen the cars or anything unusual at the roundabout that night. And then no mention of it at trial? Would there be evidence tendered, that the jury sees, but that hasn't been cross examined or heard in court?

hang in there.. .. Gerards 2nd charge.. interfering with a corpse at the Kholo bridge will sort that out.. once he takes the stand. ( haha)..

that charge unequivocally places Gerard at the Kholo bridge., ... that he, Gerard, interfered with the corpse of Alison at that bridge across the Kholo creek.
how did he get there?

he certainly didn't walk, carrying a corpse.

 

[Freya1977]

Weird isnt it? What was the whole point of timeing the cars going around the roundabout and stopping drivers the next week to see if they had seen anything, making call outs in the media for people to come forward if they had seen the cars or anything unusual at the roundabout that night. And then no mention of it at trial?

I'm guessing they had a car on camera and they suspected/thought it was GBC but it turned out to be someone else. Because they were asking people with similar vehicles to come forward.

Or like someone else said yesterday, they were checking to see if it was possible for him to drive through there and not be caught on film. The camera takes a snap every 30 seconds or so I believe.

Either way, it obviously came to nothing

 

[squizzey1]

After subscribing to WS two years ago and spending hours and hours readings these posts, I have only just found out how to refresh the page! Duh!

ha ha not much smart there don't fret it took me over a year and they all rubbished me then . it was a very busy time and it was hell .glad u got it sorted happy sleuthing

 

[BigT]

:tantrum: I'm so confused:tantrum:

Sections 302 of the Criminal Code Queensland states:

(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;

( comment; There must premise adduced so far for this point....he was planning for 2 days, and it has not escaped that he allowed calls to TM on that evening)

(b) if the death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

( comment: There must be a premise adduced so far for this point.....he was going to collect the insurance. Interestingly this requires that a body is found, missing is am insurance complication)

(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;

( comment) If caught at any time during this act, he would have be arrested immediately

(d) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of murder.

( comment: So murder is what he faces)

What the police must prove

In order for the Police to prove their case at Court, they must prove each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt.

The person is dead; (YES Alison is dead)
The accused killed him; that is he caused his death; and
The accused did so intending to cause his death, or at least to cause him grievous bodily harm (YES he had intention)
It will be necessary for the Police in every offence to prove that the accused was the person who committed the offence. (YES it is adduced he was the only one with the opportunity and acted alone)

Don't sweat, he is staying where he is......

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I can't believe this, I think we more evidence than what was presented. All they have as evidence is the scratches on GBC face, which could be from anyone and the leaf material from around their house, again could be anyone. There is no theory or timeframe, no scenario, I really thought they had him for an hour or so today. So if it isn't GBC who was it? If he intended to plead guilty to manslaughter, would that not have come up earlier?

We will never know what they were looking for at the roundabout. It is no wonder they didn't arrest him quickly, they had nothing to arrest him on, only stupidity.

Not happy Jan!!!

The prosecution haven't done there summing up yet. They'll put it all together, tie it up with a bow and hand it over to the jury.

As much as it doesn't seem like crucial evidence, how about the Defence team? They have not provided credible or any reasons for most of the damning evidence against GBC.

All they've done is try to discredit expert witnesses. How lame is that? (not that it's their fault, the case against their client is pretty incriminating.) They are basically trying to put doubt into the juror's minds. Good luck with that, I say.

The best the defence can do is make everyone on the stand look stupid. Believe me, I know that first hand. JMHO

 

[JK673]

hang in there.. .. Gerards 2nd charge.. interfering with a corpse at the Kholo bridge will sort that out.. once he takes the stand. ( haha)..

that charge unequivocally places Gerard at the Kholo bridge., ... that he, Gerard, interfered with the corpse of Alison at that bridge across the Kholo creek.
how did he get there?

he certainly didn't walk, carrying a corpse.

like your posts Trooper.....you in legal profession?

 

[HoolyDooly]

I thought so too, but I was in error.. unlawful killing probably was mentioned, but the main thrust of the defence was, that no murder had been committed at all. ( that is, the defence say, that Alison committed suicide) ..

but the judge says, nope.. a murder WAS committed, and the trial goes on.

I sincerely hope this is so Troop ! We want justice for Allison the girls and the Dickies.
I want to see the gavel (is that how it is spelt?) go down with "Guilty as charged" because that is how I see it
But I want all legal argument to be offered most of all, for both sides and for justice to prevail, ultimately.

 

[marlywings]

Could someone please tell me how to refresh

Use either F5 key or go right to top of page next to address bar & click on the circle icon "refresh".

 

[Freya1977]

Can someone explain the process of how witnesses are allocated to prosecution or defence? Does prosecution get first pick? How does it work exactly? Can someone say no, and testify for defence instead?

TIA

 

[squizzey1]

Could someone please tell me how to refresh

right click outside of the main script like under advertisements , lots of options come up near the bottom is refresh click on that and it will refresh cheers


sorry marly has explained posted before I saw m's post

 

[Stick]

What I do not understand is this: The Crown's DNA expert said that she found partial DNA profile in two of Allison's left hand fingernails.

Let's understand this comparing a partial DNA strand to a winning lottery ticket. Let's say that Gerard's DNA strand has 6 numbers and let's say that the partial DNA strand has 3 numbers. Then the analyst can exclude or include him because she would be comparing the numbers she has to Gerard's numbers.

Let's say for example that Gerard's numbers are 1, 5, 12, 18, 24 & 58. Now let's say that the partial DNA numbers from the nails are 12, 24 & 58. This means that Gerard is a partial match to the partial DNA. Therefore he could have been included in the list of suspects.

Do you guys get my drift?

Your analogy is correct, however it must have been that the sample was so poorly corrupted that it provided for virtually limitless potential matches.