The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 9th July - Trial Day 17

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Snails said:
Did the same yesterday when a group of blues "golden oldies" walked past in Roma Street - Brad Fittler, blocker Roach etc - they got the same treatment from me - I was not impressed :)
Click to expand...

Ha ha. Went shopping with my son today and the checkout lady had a blues jersey on and he wouldn't let me go through her checkout, even though she had no one at the checkout.... He made me do self serve !
 
Snails said:
Ha! I saw the blues in Roma Street when I left court around midday. I pretended that I had no idea who they were and I looked straight ahead.
Click to expand...

:floorlaugh::truce:
 
KG1 said:
I have noticed the predominance of wearing something among the two BC women and other women who are with them sometimes. Does anyone know what this signifies, if anything?
Click to expand...

I left out the word purple when I originally posted the above comment. Sorry - it now makes more sense (to me at least).:facepalm:

I have noticed the predominance of wearing something purple among the two BC women and other women who are with them sometimes. Does anyone know what this signifies, if anything?
 
KG1 said:
I left out the word purple when I originally posted the above comment. Sorry - it now makes more sense (to me at least).:facepalm:

I have noticed the predominance of wearing something purple among the two BC women and other women who are with them sometimes. Does anyone know what this signifies, if anything?
Click to expand...

They are fake. That's what it means! This is not a game of football and they are not on the purple team and Allison's family are not on a yellow team. Yellow is for Allison and respect and remembrance of a death of a mother of three little girls.
They should be showing respect and wearing yellow if their golden child is innocent.

IMHOO
 
Originally Posted by wewillgetyou

Good grief

I think Olivia will be a howling mess if the verdict is guilty. I don't think she will cope and will need to be helped from the courtroom.

My opinion is he killed her in the bedroom, smothered her on the bed. Easy to get on top of her and hold down the pillow or cushion over her face. If she already had a cold and had some breathing difficulty due to that it would have made things even easier for him.
Click to expand...

Berry said:
I try to believe that WWGY comrade, however to encompass all the leaves so deeply entwined in Allisons' hair must have meant the personal close encounter re fingernails happened on the upper back leaf strewn brick area not indoors babe.
Click to expand...

OK - so he strangled her in a fight outside as they were standing up - and then she fell to the ground?

Is there another way she could have got the leaves in her hair - say if he did smother or strangle her in the bed and then in taking the body out to the car he either dropped her, or dragged her along the patio because she was so heavy.

But I am thinking you could be right Berry, that the entire thing happened outside and that they went out there because they were arguing and didnt want to disturb the girls. Although the risks of neighbours hearing might have been a concern. Would he have been more likely to kill her outside? Or in the privacy of their bedroom where no one could see. I'm not really sure.
 
itsthevibe said:
OK - so he strangled her in a fight outside as they were standing up - and then she fell to the ground?

Is there another way she could have got the leaves in her hair - say if he did smother or strangle her in the bed and then in taking the body out to the car he either dropped her, or dragged her along the patio because she was so heavy.

But I am thinking you could be right Berry, that the entire thing happened outside and that they went out there because they were arguing and didnt want to disturb the girls. Although the risks of neighbours hearing might have been a concern. Would he have been more likely to kill her outside? Or in the privacy of their bedroom where no one could see. I'm not really sure.
Click to expand...

I doubt we'll never know.
 
itsthevibe said:
OK - so he strangled her in a fight outside as they were standing up - and then she fell to the ground?

Is there another way she could have got the leaves in her hair - say if he did smother or strangle her in the bed and then in taking the body out to the car he either dropped her, or dragged her along the patio because she was so heavy.

But I am thinking you could be right Berry, that the entire thing happened outside and that they went out there because they were arguing and didnt want to disturb the girls. Although the risks of neighbours hearing might have been a concern. Would he have been more likely to kill her outside? Or in the privacy of their bedroom where no one could see. I'm not really sure.
Click to expand...

As I have said before, I think that it happened outside, and that dear Scraps is the only witness to this (dogs can't testify). It would certainly explain the leaf litter, especially if G lifted A into the car after the fact. :moo:
 
JCB said:
I had a quick look at the "will he be found guilty" poll and not guilty is sitting on 11% at present. I realise the question is framed a bit differently than "is he actually guilty" but still, that is equivalent to one and a bit dissenting jurors and this is in a pretty stacked environment (looking at 20% if you include undecided and manslaughter).

I think it gives a bit of an indication that there may be quite a bit of dissension, at least initially. Would you agree that the longer deliberations take, the better the chance of a guilty verdict? It's my opinion that a swift verdict, certainly within the first 24 hours may well result in bad news but beyond the first 1-2 days the chances of a finding of guilt start to increase dramatically.

Edit - Oi, which one of you went in there and wrecked my numbers slightly :p
Click to expand...

I know there is a bit of a rule of thumb/theory that the longer the jury takes the more likely it is a guilty verdict. But I also think that a jury can come to a unanimous decision fairly quickly. I think it is made very clear to juries that they have a very big responsibility and must take the time to consider all the evidence. I don't think Breaking News will mind me sharing her jury experience as she has been talking about it tonight. BN told me when when met at court a couple of weeks ago that in the murder trial in which she was a juror, the jury all had made their minds as guilty by the time they started deliberations but because of the judges instructions they still took the time to go through all the evidence. That in itself takes time.
So JCB I agree with you generally because I think a jury will put more time into making sure they are right in making a guilty verdict even if this means going over the evidence several times just to be sure they are satisfied with guilty. Of course it must happen that there are a minority of jurors who disagree and the majority have to help them understand the evidence. That is what usually happens when it takes a long time to reach a verdict. It's all tricky to comment on because what happens in the jury room is supposed to stay in the jury room.

BreakingNews said:
Allioops, do you know when the law in Queensland got changed? When I was a juror on a murder trial in the mid 1990's, the judge told us that we could only decide on guilty or not guilty of murder. We were told we couldn't deviate to manslaughter as it wasn't the original charge (We would not have gone for manslaughter even if we could). So I've lived all these years thinking that a jury couldn't change a murder charge to manslaughter.
Appreciate your comments.
Click to expand...
BN I don't know but will see what I can find.

Fly said:
supersmartstonecoldfox :) I'd love to know who the original poster of that was though...
Click to expand...
Her Honour and spunky Todd came from me.
 
Susan12 said:
The way I look at it is this re the lies...

If Gerard did not know his wife was dead when he called police that morning, which if he didn't kill her he'd have every reason to think she was still alive, then he would have no reason to lie about the scratches as they'd point to no crime other than a fight. If the truth was you and your wife had fought and she had scratched you then left the house, but alive and you'd committed no crime against her, then why not tell police that truth as you'd have nothing to fear and it could help them find her? Also, if you'd had a fight then you wouldn't call police so soon after her being missing in the morning because you'd think she might have gone off to cool down. You'd search for her first, call her best friend or family, etc. If you called them early because you thought she might have harmed herself you'd tell them that, you'd say we had a fight and she could get depressed I'm worried. But no, he said all was fine.

The other thing, is if you lied to police 'in case' something bad had happened to her you might look guilty then the bits about calling police early still apply but also, once you got arrested for the murder if you were innocent the flood gates would open. You'd already look guilty, and now you know they think you are, so you'd be wanting to tell the truth because that would explain their evidence. You wouldn't wait for trial 2 years later to do it and you wouldn't maintain the lie that they are razor marks.

Do I think there is any reasonable explanation where they can be razor marks? No. Do I think there's an alternative reasonable explanation for why he'd lie about them for a reason other than that he killed her? No. Therefore I consider them evidence of guilt and my understanding if the judges instructions is that in thinking that then that counts as evidence against him.
Click to expand...

Timmy said:
Makes sense to me! :)
Click to expand...

Yes Timmy. Susan12 makes perfect sense. Too bad she can't hand the jury a note with her rational and logical reasoning.

Sent from my ZTE T81 using Tapatalk
 
BJsleuth said:
There were leaves etc in the footwell of the Captiva, that's all we have heard that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...

Unless they were leaves exclusively from Kholo creek they would not have been of any evidentiary value.
 
Interesting....with EBC falling asleep in court today and snoring on and off.....I wonder who did kill ABC.....the defence say she died either by seratonin syndrome, drowning or jumping off bridge, Judge seems to discount all of those theories. Ok so who can you think of....the tooth fairy? IMO
Aliwonders said:
She could and most probably does. She is his mother!!! She raised him and nothing in her wants to believe that he was capable of murdering anyone. Yes I believe that they have a strong family loyalty and are somewhat snobbish and self righteous. But really they have been thrown into this mire as well. I don't think it helps to add rumor to the stories about his family helping him and being in the know. If they are NOT and were not then they will immediately condemn the media/ for the lies. They will believe that lies are being told about Gerard because lies are being told about them also. Yes their evidence was biased towards making Gerard looking better but they will come unstuck. I sure wouldn't like to be in their shoes!! I just don't think it is helpful to put forth rumor as fact.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 127 more.
Total: 3,012 (members: 128, guests: 2,884)

Online statistics

Members online
128
Guests online
2,884
Total visitors
3,012
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,281
Messages
17,966,553
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top