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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amee said:
He said a hair attached to the blood stain was later confirmed with DNA as belonging to Ms Baden-Clay.


PROSECUTOR Todd Fuller QC has opened the Crown case in the trial of Gerard Baden-Clay, 43, who stands accused of murdering his wife Allison June Baden-Clay on April 19, 2012.

http://m.news.com.au/QLD/pg/2/fi11723293.htm
Click to expand...

Thank you so much Amee - hugely appreciated - I have no idea how you found that needle in a haystack!!! <modsnip>
 
Thinking said:
Agreed! But was this evidence even led? There seems to be so much that wasn't :(
Click to expand...

I was disappointed the botanist didn't go any further this morning.

Yesterday we heard plant matter was found in Captiva.

So I guess it was from the house & discounted :dunno:
 
JAM13 said:
Fair enough that was before she went missing. What about 10 minutes before he called the QPS he once again looked up the term "self incrimination"?
Click to expand...


I think The Good Wife search was related to the searching of 'taking the fifth'.
It was the internet search during the Morning Ablutions which referenced 'self-incrimination' if I'm not mistaken..
 
marlywings said:
It's all presented between prosecutor & defence but not all of it is reported by media to general public.

Cowan's case is a classic example of that.
Click to expand...



But do the jury hear or will the prosecution be able to use it in their summary? They have mentioned that it has been agreed that Gerard made a claim on May 1st but will this be emphasised to the jury that this was before identification. It also said it was agreed between teams that the finances were in dire straits, so hopefully jury are told this
 
Tishy said:
I think The Good Wife search was related to the searching of 'taking the fifth'.
It was the internet search during the Morning Ablutions which referenced 'self-incrimination' if I'm not mistaken..
Click to expand...

Yes. From what I've heard (and I've been following the whole case fairly closely, but haven't read EVERYTHING) there were two different searches at different times - one for "taking the fifth" and another for "self-incrimination".

Also, has the evidence of GBC's iPhone being returned to its charger at 1am been discussed at all in court? Has he ever offered any explanation? Anyone?

Finally, I wonder what GBC's normal texts to ABC were like? Were they generally as "warm", "personable", and "concerned" as they were on the morning of the 20th?

-"hope you slept well"
- "getting concerned"
- "Love, G"
- etc.
 
kiwi50 said:
I think the verdict will hinge on the Judges summing up, and how he instructs the jurors
on "reasonable doubt" it is such a vague concept and every juror may interpret it differently.
Click to expand...

"What, then, constitutes a reasonable doubt?" the prosecutor usually asks the baffled jurors.

Maybe "reasonable doubt" is what we lay people call "gut reaction" - an instinct that many of us try to ignore, if it goes against what we think we want, or if it's about to predict something we don't want to hear.

Perhaps our gut reaction is our greatest barometer of truth and fiction.
It's that nagging feeling that tells you there's a fire.....

Every Jury (of reasonable peers) is led by their gut instinct IMHO
 
Total said:
I think you just provided your own precedence.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion but nevertheless you are entitled to your opinion. I don't want to clog up any more of this thread but for the record I was quoting a very rare exception, one that definitely does not apply to this trial. One thing I think we can all agree on is that if GBC is indeed responsible for Allison's murder, he is swiftly and justly dealt with for the sake of Allison, her family and her friends.
 
Sorry everyone if this post shows up successfully. I'm just testing to see if I can post at all because every time I have been trying to respond, nothing shows up :-(
 
kiwi50 said:
I think the verdict will hinge on the Judges summing up, and how he instructs the jurors
on "reasonable doubt" it is such a vague concept and every juror may interpret it differently.
Click to expand...

This is something I've definitely struggled with in looking at this case. Just been having a look tonight on Google and based on the suggested direction from the Qld Courts website that is to be given if the jurors are struggling with the concept, it seems like there is no specific guidance on what constitutes "reasonable doubt".

"A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as you, the jury, consider to be
reasonable on a consideration of the evidence. It is therefore for you, and
each of you, to say whether you have a doubt you consider reasonable. If
at the end of your deliberations, you, as reasonable persons, have such a
doubt about the guilt of the defendant, the charge has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt."

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/86060/sd-bb-57-reasonable-doubt.pdf

It gives me a little more confidence that the jury will not be swayed by the defence blatant attempts to pick holes in the prosecution case (such as questioning whether the expert witnesses could 100% rule out an alternative cause for scratches. I mean of course they can't if they weren't there but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...)
 
Ooops - thanks Marlywings for modsnipping me - sorry for the extra work. I didn't realise the rules about alluding to stuff. I should have read the :tos:
 
Mumma Bear said:
Thank you so much Amee - hugely appreciated - I have no idea how you found that needle in a haystack!!! <modsnip>
Click to expand...

you are welcome.

I had re-read that msm the other day, because when I first read it I thought it meant the hair tested to Allisons DNA. But it was the blood .


The court heard police conducted a chemical test for blood which returned a positive result. A hair was also found at the base of the stain.

The court also heard that Allison's DNA was found in the boot of the couple's car. The sample came from a blood stain in the boot of the car

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...den-Clays-diary-read-court.html#ixzz35djFrVc6
 
KG1 said:
I think she is excused - period, Makara. No more TM at trial.
Click to expand...
Speaking of TM ..... did anyone at the Trial today notice that in the spreadsheet detailing the phone calls that the Detectives had collated and showed calls made from various phones ..... there was a call from one mobile phone in TM's name to second phone in TM's name .. call lasting barely one second time (this occurred around 5.20pm on 19 Apr during a bunch of phone calls between GBC and TM .... when one or two of the calls between the two of them seemed to drop out). In wondering why TM would phone another phone in her name, it could be deduced that the other phone was in the name of one her boys / or did GBC possess a mobile phone? (registered in the name of TM!).
One would think that TM would not, during such a serious and anxious discussion going on between GBC and TM, that she would take time out to make an attempt to phone one of her boys.
NO, JMO .... it is most likely to be that TM would have that second phone in her name for the use of GBC.
There may be other phone call records between these two phones in the possession of the Detectives.

Most likely, more incriminating evidence to come ....... when Defence intervened this afternoon, and took the opportunity to change the charge from MURDER. JMO
 
Yes, the whole "beyond reasonable doubt" thing is always hard to quantify.

In short, in civil trials a case must be proven "on the balance of probabilities" (i.e. whoever has the more compelling case, even on a 51%-49% certainty basis wins).

In criminal trials, "beyond reasonable doubt" is, say, closer to 90% certainty. However, it is not deemed to mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt" (which may be closer to 99% or 100% certainty). For example, virtually irrefutable evidence (e.g. DNA evidence; video evidence, etc) is certainly helpful, but is not required. A strong circumstantial case can be enough...BUT it does have to be STRONG.
 
I was hoping for a little more linking Gerard to her murder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
toe said:
I'm cringing at his reference to Allison as she, she, she, like he couldn't even refer to her by name.
Click to expand...

and he so modest... so ..... depreciative of his own poor little husbandly skills... so ... reluctantly referring to the depression stuff.. so anxious to insert his position as owner (?? owner of what?? at that very moment he was owner of $600,000.00 hard unpayable debt with not a prayer of paying it unless he could claim the 'her' insurance payout ) of a real estate business..


such a nice guy.. and.. lets not forget. this is the Saturday.. he has already rung Toni and ask her, yes or no , has she told the police if they are back together again..

whatta prince!!..
 
Was the iPhone being returned to the charter at 1AM (when <modsnip> was supposedly asleep) ever discussed in court?

What about the nature of GBC's text messages to his wife? They sure sounded "kind" and "concerned" (e.g. "where are you?" "love, G") on the morning of the 20th. I wonder if they were always like this in the previous months/years, while GBC was out and about with his mistresses? Was he always so "nice" to his dear wife?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 67 more.
Total: 1,240 (members: 68, guests: 1,172)

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
1,172
Total visitors
1,240
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,784
Messages
17,958,861
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top