The Verdict Waiting Room #2

[kiwijayne]

There are not too many houses around the (then) BC rental property. It is a rural area. There is not much through traffic, even in the daytime. (I live in a nearby suburb, and have several friends out there so I go to and through Brookfield often.) The church is next door to where they were living when Allison "disappeared" and the show grounds are opposite. Their house is quite isolated, even for Brookfield, where most people live on acreage properties. Having said that, sound does travel in this area (IMO), as it is quite low lying compared to other places in the vicinity: it is a hilly area but the area around the showgrounds is flat. Does that make sense? I do think Bruce Flegg, et al, heard Allison that night (and not from the girl scared by a spider web). Bruce Flegg is a medical doctor: why would he report hearing screams that sent alarm bells for him? No reason to, especially as he was a friend/acquaintance of GBC.

I beg to differ Brookfield Rd is quite busy. The showgrounds are down the road not opposite and it is not isolated it is next to a preschool and near the tennis centre.

 

[HoolyDooly]

I actually feel they are close but needing to be absolutely sure. This is a huge decision they are making ...... and it is huge deciding such a thing on only circumstantial evidence, I would certainly be feeling the pressure and would need some reassurance. I hope I'm right but I do believe they are close now.....

Yes I agree Thinking. I did at times find the way the judge explained or expressed points did leave me unsure of his actual meaning. I re-read and reviewed. The judge is in a hard place I think, now. He cannot explain in such a way to inadvertently lead the jury - towards a bias so to speak.

And it seems to me the jury have broken down evidence into sections and are combing through the data (evidence) in a very considered fashion. In this way they are ensuring that they are going to get this verdict correct by law for the purpose of justice, and for their consciences as they have worked over the detail in a way they feel is satisfactory to achieve a unanimous verdict. Tough job.

I look forward to reading your posts from the day, and no doubt will have a few chuckles - as always !
Thanks tweeters again.

 

[Cattail]

I continue to be confused about the "missing" pyjamas. On Day 12 of the trial, GBC said Allison was wearing pyjamas (only his word, I know) - but I can't figure out why he would say this only to have them missing (apparently) later. When asked by Todd Fuller he gave a ridiculous reply (the pyjamas were not in the photo). I doubt it's in any way critical to the trial but just something that has left me wondering.

Baden-Clay said his wife was wearing blue and white chequered pyjamas, with a sloppy joe and blue hiking socks that she would usually wear around the house.

He said he did not see her wearing anything else.

“When we got home she was already changed into that,” he said of her pyjamas.

I think he was just painting a picture of nothing happening to Allison that night. See there she was in her pjs ready for bed. That fits in with his story of her getting up early for a walk and something happening to her then.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HoolyDooly]

I love the auto save best.

Me too...that auto saved has saved me a couple of times....like when I want to post....type type type..then Dooh!...my 'log-in' has dropped out @#$%.....

 

[minusfour]

Oh, gosh, what could the jury be discussing? I hate to think how many hours we have all spent reading and thinking about this case, oh, but really, how much longer? I have been reduced to checking my phone frantically every chance I have at work, and reluctantly taking part in "non trial" activities, sigh, here's hoping tomorrow is the day!

 

[Tangled_Web]

On 7 July, when talking about the three Cs each lending him $90,000, GBC said "these were long standing friends I was borrowing from" - and that's when our smoochable QC made his "subtlety" remark.

That definitely was a quotable quote - and yes the context was in relation to the three Cs.

It also reminded me of another quote from TF that I wrote down when in court to hear his summing up. Brilliantly delivered, it was about the placement of the toys in the back of the car being "a subtle touch" - another attempt by GBC to show just how normal things were that morning.

 

[Her Honour]

Oh, gosh, what could the jury be discussing?

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by three separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders and the juries, who decide their fate. These are their stories.

[Soundtrack: dit dit]

The Jury Room. Day Four. 0939 hours.

Juror #1: Alright everyone. Are we any closer to a decision?
Juror #2: We'd better be. My flatmate said she read somewhere if we don't decide in a "reasonable time", the judge can send us to jail or something? I am FREAKING OUT. Like, seriously. I CANNOT miss any more B&B. Do they have TVs in jail?
Juror #3: What's today? Anyway, wouldn't there just be a whole new trial?
Juror #4: Excellent! More cheesecake.
Juror #5: Wouldn't it be with a different jury though?
Juror #6: Shame. I have NO food in the fridge. For real. I sooo need to go shopping.
Juror #7: If you ask me, it all comes down to intent. The judge said if we couldn't satisfy ourselves about intent, we'd have to consider manslaughter. But I think he was required to say that by law. I've been thinking a lot about those scratches. What do they say about intent?
Juror #8: Intent? Is that, like, a camping app?
Juror #9: Oooooh, level 7! Woo HOO!
Juror #10: Can I please borrow someone's notes? All I've got here is somethingsomethingsomething Toblerone something...
Juror #11: You people are crushing my spirit.
Juror #12: "Wait, what? Yep. Yep. No, hang on, I'm losing you - not Albert Park, ALBION. Yep. No, number six IN the fifth! Ha ha, yeah mate. I reckon!"

 

[MaxwellSmart]

Every now and again (usually in the shower - my thinking room) I am hit hard that Alison. Is. Dead.

the crushing sadness of the thought of those poor girls envelopes me each time my daughter says "mummy I'm scared, please lie with me." They will never have the love that a mother has an endless supply of. The absolute cocoon of safety that a mothers hug ensures, can not be replaced by anyone, no matter how close ( Dickies).


we can only hope that they have precious memories that will be kept alive by their remaining family.

Please please please jury, do it for the girls.

 

[HoolyDooly]

There is no other reasonable possibility. There just isn't. Suicide - not reasonable. Stranger - not reasonable. Misadventure - not reasonable. What else is there? Murder by her husband with three fingernail scratches on his face and $900k to gain - reasonable.

That is correct. Very clearly put.

If one lists the facts be it circumstantial or not and apply reason and logic to me it shows conscious murder, may have started as a tiff and she scratched to protect herself, and he consciously followed through with evil deed. Hopefully succinctly the jury will distil the information and evidence back to the indisputable facts - so clearly put buy Todd Fuller inbeing Allison's advocate.

 

[Thinking]

That definitely was a quotable quote - and yes the context was in relation to the three Cs.

It also reminded me of another quote from TF that I wrote down when in court to hear his summing up. Brilliantly delivered, it was about the placement of the toys in the back of the car being "a subtle touch" - another attempt by GBC to show just how normal things were that morning.

Yes that was great I also loved when he called GBC on his story about "having to set up an office at home" as he needed to look after Allison (essentially), when really the reason he was at home was because he was made redundant!

 

[Susan12]

Baden-Clay has pleaded not guilty in the Supreme Court in Brisbane.

The jury was given a redirection by Justice John Byrne at 3.51pm, after they had been deliberating for almost 19 hours.

The jury via a note asked for another reading to explain “the process, meaning and application of circumstantial evidence to arrive at a verdict”.

Justice Byrne reread to the jury a passage from his summing up.

“As no one claims to have seen the accused kill his wife, this is a circumstantial case. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances that can be relied upon not as proving fact directly, but instead as pointing to its existence,” he said.

“It differs from direct evidence, which tends to prove a fact directly, typically when a witness testifies about something which that witness saw or heard.

“Both direct and circumstantial evidence are to be considered. It is not necessary for a fact to be proved by direct evidence. They may be proved by circumstantial evidence alone, by direct evidence alone or by a combination of direct and circumstantial, that is, both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable proof of facts.

“So you should consider all the evidence, including circumstantial evidence.

“Importantly, to bring in a verdict of guilty based entirely, or substantially, on circumstantial evidence, guilt should not only be a rational inference: it must be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances.

“If there is any reasonable possibility consistent with innocence, it is your duty to find the accused not guilty. This follows from the requirement that guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.”

Justice Byrne asked the jury to return to its deliberations at 3.55pm.

The jury of seven men and five women retired to consider a verdict on Thursday at 11.10am.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...me-deliberations/story-fnihsrf2-1226987798654

Last week it seemed they wanted to understand murder vs manslaughter so I wondered if that where they are at.

Now with wanting to know about circumstantial evidence in this way it makes me wonder if it's further back on whether he is guilty at all? :S I'm not really liking how the passage ended, if it makes them start over questioning reasonable doubt to think it's any doubt and start questioning themselves.

What do you guys think from them asking this?

 

[catswhiskers]

That definitely was a quotable quote - and yes the context was in relation to the three Cs.

It also reminded me of another quote from TF that I wrote down when in court to hear his summing up. Brilliantly delivered, it was about the placement of the toys in the back of the car being "a subtle touch" - another attempt by GBC to show just how normal things were that morning.

Yes, the 'subtle touch' comment that sprang to my mind first was the one about the toys being placed in the car. How convenient they were.

 

[BatWoman]

I was a bit worried today. I get the feeling that there's a couple of jurors who are having problems with reasonable doubt, ie it's not ALL doubt, and we'll end up with a hung jury and have to go through it all again. I have everything crossed that we'll see justice served tomorrow.

I'm a little bit scared but i'm okaykay:

 

[HoolyDooly]

Welcome amatteroftime

:welcome6:
Thank you for your thoughtful - and reassuring -post!!!

Yes amatteroftime. Great summary! It was good to read through again as it encapsulated the undoubted events and the unanswered questions

 

[Susan12]

Well the judge has made this clear. So the only other possibility raised by the defence was suicide, no abduction etc. So if the jury does not think there is a reasonable possibility Allison committed suicide then they have to find him guilty of murder or manslaughter.


Probably. Hopefully that's now cleared up for them. They also don't have to be satisfied about each individual piece of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Just taking all that evidence as a whole is what is needed to be determined beyond reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict.

I hope the jury get both of these things, I'm feeling concerned!

 

[Tangled_Web]

I'm not sure whether this is significant:

One juror lingered in the courtroom re-reading Justice Byrne's summation, which was displayed on a large screen, as the other jurors rose from their seats to return to the deliberation room.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gerard-badenclay-trial-three-days-of-deliberations-and-no-verdict-yet-20140714-zt74a.html

 

[Susan12]

I hope the jury are clear that reasonable doubt doesn't mean any doubt. I never heard the judge explain that to them do they get given anything that does?

I feel like the prosecution was able to surprise them in what they said and had a strong case. If it went to a retrial they'd lose that element of surprise. I also fear that GBC wouldn't take the stand again in another trial after seeing how it went here as I think that helped the prosecution. So I don't want them to be hung and I want them to find him guilty ASAP.

 

[HoolyDooly]

I'm not sure whether this is significant:

One juror lingered in the courtroom re-reading Justice Byrne's summation, which was displayed on a large screen, as the other jurors rose from their seats to return to the deliberation room.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gerard-badenclay-trial-three-days-of-deliberations-and-no-verdict-yet-20140714-zt74a.html

May not mean necessarily that they are recalcitrant....?

 

[Tigerlily75]

I was a bit worried today. I get the feeling that there's a couple of jurors who are having problems with reasonable doubt, ie it's not ALL doubt, and we'll end up with a hung jury and have to go through it all again. I have everything crossed that we'll see justice served tomorrow.

I'm a little bit scared but i'm okaykay:

That's what I'm worried about too. I hope the judges comments today cleared it up for them, I really do. Beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.

 

[Fuskier]

Folks this thread is about the trial of GBC & waiting for the verdict.

It has absolutely nothing to do with birthing babies, pets, school holidays or Rolf Harris.

All off topic posts will be removed.

Thank you Marlywings.