The Verdict Waiting Room

[Snails]

Thankyou to Marly for going through the process of allowing me permission to post this link:

There is a USA case currently taking my attention on WS - Abby Jo Blagg - Missing Person.
Michael Blagg (her father) was charged 1st Degree Murder for killing his wife and dumping her body.
Staged the murder.
The wifes body was found 9 months later - but his little girls was not

After looking for further information regarding the Blagg 2004 case, I noticed some key points which mirrors the GBC case greatly.
I wanted to post the opinion of the Credibility and Deception Expert after they saw a video of him being questioned by Police and the 911 calls - including his numerous calls to the house during the day to say Hi to his wife and where is she...

Sound familiar?
Michael Blagg received a Life Sentence.
This is a US case - not Australian - it is for comparison.
And something to read up till we start again Monday at GBC trial.


2004 - http://www.eyesforlies.com/blog/michael-blagg-48-hours/


A (2004) video link where you can listen to the 911 call - 1 minute 19sec into the clip is here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Junction-12-Nov-2001&p=10736871#post10736871

And the Affidavit to Arrest - the Police suspicions. Mentions the emails, the daily calls to see where she is - the *advertiser censored*, the escort services - specs of her blood in the car, red flags when interviewed, the pre-meditated planning, the lack of evidence, the job description, witness reports ...
http://www.courts.state.co.us/userf...Interest/People_v_Bryant/7-03/media7-29_7.pdf

....

Its not one exclusive case comparison to another - there are many more here on WS that ring true with the same premise - like a script (as someone else mentioned).

A very interesting "comparative case". Thanks figtree.

 

[Snails]

You are right. It's been 12 years and I now need glasses for night driving. But it's been great not having to wear glasses for this long and I am still ok in the day and night unless driving. They can look good but when you rely on them it's just a nuisance. I am glad I got it done.

Most patients love the 10 year reprieve from wearing glasses that laser surgery gives them. They can find it difficult when they have to return to wearing them again after the results of their laser surgery wear off. I've been wearing specs for so long now they are part of my uniform. Just as well I get them for free, thanks to our reps

 

[BatWoman]

Thank you for sharing! I've just read the first link and I agree, very chilling. Pleased to hear he was found guilty. Now, off to hunt down the 48 Hours episode about him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dark-side-of-the-mesa-14-06-2005/

A lot of similarities, particularly with his family. Apparently he's been granted a new trial though.

 

[Snails]

Echo....echo.....echo

maybe everybody is grabbing a life...not me...bummed that after a tumultuous two weeks of warp speed forum and me out in western qld with patchy wifi (and mobile plan GB all used up!!!!!!) I get home yesterday with the excessive 500 GB at my beck and call....and............it all comes to a screeching halt!

It looks like the party animals have all gone out and it's just you and me kiwijayne - having a life is over--rated....much more fun sitting on the couch in slippers and robe yelling at the kids to go to sleep because school starts day after tomorrow so they better get used to going to bed earlier....yeah....livin' the dream.....sigh....echo.....

I'm still here!

 

[alioop]

I post this now as I just found it and don't want to lose it. I want to comment on it later tonight so will quote it then.

Judge Byrne direction to jury

"If you conclude that the accused lied because he realised that the truth would implicate him in killing his wife, you would need carefully also to consider whether the lie reveals a consciousness of guilt merely with respect to manslaughter as distinct from also revealing an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm,” he said.

“You may only use the lie about cutting himself shaving – if it is a lie – as tending to prove the element of murder of an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm if, on the whole of the evidence, the accused lied because he realised that the truth of the matter in that respect would show that, in killing his wife, he had intended to kill her or to cause her grievous bodily harm.



“It may be that, even if you were to find that the accused lied about his facial injuries because he realised that the truth would show him to be the killer, still you would not conclude that the lie shows that he realised that her death after scratching him with her fingernails would show that he had killed her intentionally.”

I promised that I would comment on this direction by the Judge. Sorry it has taken me this long. A websleuther who was in court 3 weeks ago heard the lawyers and judge talking about an Edwards Direction. I had no idea what this was so I looked it up. This is the suggested wording for such a direction.
"Finally, in this case the alleged lie is the only evidence against the defendant [or is a critical fact in the prosecution’s circumstantial case against him]. Before you can use the lie against the defendant, you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt not only that he lied but also that he lied because he realised that the truth would implicate him in the offence."

I told the websleuther who asked me that I thought it must be about the face scratches. They certainly fit the category of being a critical fact and that he could have lied about them because to tell the truth that Allison made them would implicate him in her murder.

So it's an Edwards direction to the jury that because such a lie about the razor is critical to the case, that they have to be certain that he told the lie to avoid being implicated for murder and not for some lesser reason, eg she scratched him after they had a fight and then voluntarily left him. The judges direction goes further to say it is open to the jury to conclude that the lie about the scratches implicates him in her killing her but not necessarily intentionally.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[alioop]

Agreed. I'll be in touch. But not sure how I'll go on Monday unless a verdict comes in around late morning or noon, or at the end of the day. I'll be at work but because of various meetings or times when i may be able to leave the office, there could be some opportunities to nip into the city but it is all going to depend on the time.

I really hope I am able to get in for the verdict, or at least soon after so whoever wants to can get together to either celebrate or drown our sorrows. Ideally late Monday would be great - jury do you think you could oblige? Late Wednesday would be good too but surely it won't take that long - and how agonising would that be?

Can any of our legal eagles tell us - what happens if a jury can't reach a verdict, what do they do? Do they have another trial with another jury?

If the jury cannot reach a verdict after a sufficient amount of time, then the judge will order a fresh trial. It is then up to the Crown whether they prosecute again. They likely would if they think they can get a conviction with a different jury. That of course would be a costly debacle in many ways.

 

[Cattail]

I promised that I would comment on this direction by the Judge. Sorry it has taken me this long. A websleuther who was in court 3 weeks ago heard the lawyers and judge talking about an Edwards Direction. I had no idea what this was so I looked it up. This is the suggested wording for such a direction.
"Finally, in this case the alleged lie is the only evidence against the defendant [or is a critical fact in the prosecution’s circumstantial case against him]. Before you can use the lie against the defendant, you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt not only that he lied but also that he lied because he realised that the truth would implicate him in the offence."

I told the websleuther who asked me that I thought it must be about the face scratches. They certainly fit the category of being a critical fact and that he could have lied about them because to tell the truth that Allison made them would implicate him in her murder.

So it's an Edwards direction to the jury that because such a lie about the razor is critical to the case, that they have to be certain that he told the lie to avoid being implicated for murder and not for some lesser reason, eg she scratched him after they had a fight and then voluntarily left him. The judges direction goes further to say it is open to the jury to conclude that the lie about the scratches implicates him in her killing her but not necessarily intentionally.

Hope this makes sense.

I think I understand it.

So the jury is able to decide that GBC lied about the razor cuts but still decide not guilty if they think he was just worried the cuts might make him look bad but they feel it hasn't been proven he was involved in her death.

They could also decide he lied to conceal evidence of his involvement in her death. In that case they still have to decide between intent (murder) and no intent (manslaughter).

Have I got it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thinking]

I promised that I would comment on this direction by the Judge. Sorry it has taken me this long. A websleuther who was in court 3 weeks ago heard the lawyers and judge talking about an Edwards Direction. I had no idea what this was so I looked it up. This is the suggested wording for such a direction.
"Finally, in this case the alleged lie is the only evidence against the defendant [or is a critical fact in the prosecution’s circumstantial case against him]. Before you can use the lie against the defendant, you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt not only that he lied but also that he lied because he realised that the truth would implicate him in the offence."

I told the websleuther who asked me that I thought it must be about the face scratches. They certainly fit the category of being a critical fact and that he could have lied about them because to tell the truth that Allison made them would implicate him in her murder.

So it's an Edwards direction to the jury that because such a lie about the razor is critical to the case, that they have to be certain that he told the lie to avoid being implicated for murder and not for some lesser reason, eg she scratched him after they had a fight and then voluntarily left him. The judges direction goes further to say it is open to the jury to conclude that the lie about the scratches implicates him in her killing her but not necessarily intentionally.

Hope this makes sense.

Thanks Ali - you are clearer than the judge, they need you there

 

[Froglady]

Ive been checking in between crippling back spasms that go as fast as they come and my 5 yr old who has HFA who has been in meltdown mode for the past 3 days. Oh the joys.
Loads of fun lol

 

[alioop]

I think I understand it.

So the jury is able to decide that GBC lied about the razor cuts but still decide not guilty if they think he was just worried the cuts might make him look bad but they feel it hasn't been proven he was involved in her death.

They could also decide he lied to conceal evidence of his involvement in her death. In that case they still have to decide between intent (murder) and no intent (manslaughter).

Have I got it?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You sure have! And the jury has to look at all the evidence to make a decision on intent, not just the scratches.

 

[possumheart]

Ive been checking in between crippling back spasms that go as fast as they come and my 5 yr old who has HFA who has been in meltdown mode for the past 3 days. Oh the joys.
Loads of fun lol

The back sounds terrible. I am hibernating. Nights should get warmer after tonight. The full moon can't be doing any of us any good. Hope little fellow settles.

 

[alioop]

Ive been checking in between crippling back spasms that go as fast as they come and my 5 yr old who has HFA who has been in meltdown mode for the past 3 days. Oh the joys.
Loads of fun lol

Does not sound like loads of fun at all. Hugs and hope things improve quicker than a verdict!

 

[they'll get you]

Well done FigTree. I remember seeing this case but I didn't put 2+2 together.
Far too close for comfort. I commented a while ago that wife killers can also kill their children and when Allison said to her mum that she couldn't leave without her children it sent up the red flag for me.

Could my hubby think I'm going to kill him because I'm always researching murders? (No thanks to my friends @ WS) LOL

 

[they'll get you]

Ive been checking in between crippling back spasms that go as fast as they come and my 5 yr old who has HFA who has been in meltdown mode for the past 3 days. Oh the joys.
Loads of fun lol

Aww sweet little froggie I do hope you have help and have someone who can lessen the load for you. Are your muscle spasms from stress or a prior injury. Remember YOU babe, please look after yourself because you are the life force for your beautiful child.
Beautiful mums like you are the backbone for future generations.
Love TGYxx

 

[fruity]

FigTree as I was reading through your links one of the statistics really stuck out. I've forgotten the exact number now (I read it earlier) but in 95? % of cases where a body is removed from the home it was the husband.

I've been thinking about the jury a lot today.

 

[Not Poirot]

Alioop, thank you, that was a great explanation.

IMO the judge's words lacked clarity, and it concerns me that this could be causing needless confusion for the jury members.

I had the benefit of being able to read his words repeatedly, and it was still slightly muddling.

It is possible to convey even difficult concepts in such a way that the average lay-person can swiftly grasp what is meant.

JMO!

 

[Timmy]

I don't mean to sound awful but...... I was just reading over the summary of the trial Days 1-18 and got up to GBC's testimony and was reading, reading, reading..... Trying hard to concentrate.... Started skimming.... Reading bits.... Thinking ... My Goodness when will it end .... And then I was reminded of that scene in Flying High where Ted is telling all the passengers about his relationship with Elaine and one by one they kill themselves because they can't listen to his story any longer!! Sorry... Just had to share because it made me laugh...... It is soooooo hard to read!

 

[Froglady]

We are fine just how our life goes the back has been going since I had my first bub 19 yrs ago who was 9 pound 8 lol. The little tadpole is going to bed now so we can have a bit of quiet
Sorry for OT Marley :blushing:

 

[Froglady]

I don't mean to sound awful but...... I was just reading over the summary of the trial Days 1-18 and got up to GBC's testimony and was reading, reading, reading..... Trying hard to concentrate.... Started skimming.... Reading bits.... Thinking ... My Goodness when will it end .... And then I was reminded of that scene in Flying High where Ted is telling all the passengers about his relationship with Elaine and one by one they kill themselves because they can't listen to his story any longer!! Sorry... Just had to share because it made me laugh...... It is soooooo hard to read!

I remember that lol

 

[alioop]

My dad was a pilot and we went to the drive in to watch Flying High. All my family except dad were rolling out of the car in hysterics and the only thing my dad smiled at was when they were flying on instruments! Guess it wasn't funny to a pilot.
I still remember most of the lines from that movie and often say, "but that's not important right now"!