Gerard Baden Clay's murder appeal

[they'll get you]

Über groomed sitting by lamplight, then long shots walking up the beach picking up shells. Fades out with Toni in a white shirt and denim clamdiggers, wind machine on tousled hair sitting on a wharf with her legs dangling and manicured toes wiggling, staring out to sea.

Poss that reminds me something what Allison said in her diary

 

[possumheart]

Madonna King on 'Business as Usual'
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/com...-why-lie-in-court-gerard-20151208-gliz3n.html

 

[they'll get you]

Some egg-head on Andrew Bolt 2GB said the maximum for manslaughter is life.

Maybe the public outrage will make them see reason.

 

[Ooohm]

Gerard Baden-Clay has not admitted anything!
So who put up the alternative defense? I suspect this has been bubbling away in someone's mind since the end of the trial and the opportunity presented itself to give it a shot

So how is it that his lawyers can put forward a change of defense on Appeal? Good question! Don't know the particular whys and wherefores but it's usually the same grease which gets wheels going: power, prestige, money
What has our Justice system come to if a convicted murderer can change his defense on Appeal without a re-trial of the new defense? The inmates with the most aggressive counsel will be the ones who will benefit IMO
What is Justice if our Appeal Court Judges can change a murder conviction by Jury on the basis of 'hypotheticals'? Does seem to open doors to some very dark places. And it does happen occasionally. I hate to see the memory of an innocent murder victim be disrespected by someone merely pushing the letter of the Law. Because that's really what is happening here. And you are very correct to ask---why? His lawyers only doing their job? Come on.

We do need to question these proceedings. This is our Justice system.
This smells worse each day. IMHO. Oh it smells. PREACH

All just my opinion

 

[Wolfinator]

Dear Santa - all I'd like for Xmas is to see the wheels of justice grind some unmentionables to a pulp.
And health and peace to the Dickies and LE.

CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 10

10 Accessories after the fact
A person who receives or assists another who is, to the person's knowledge, guilty of an offence, in order to enable the person to escape punishment, is said to become an accessory after the fact to the offence.

Max Sentence 14 Years.


<modsnip>

 

[Flinders]

I don't get what you mean. Is that (bolded) what Ray Hadley's callers were saying?

No, just my own fictionalised account.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PainExpress]

When are we protest marching in Brisbane?

 

[Couldbe]

Gerard Baden-Clay has not admitted anything!
So who put up the alternative defense?

So how is it that his lawyers can put forward a change of defense on Appeal?
What has our Justice system come to if a convicted murderer can change his defense on Appeal without a re-trial of the new defense?
What is Justice if our Appeal Court Judges can change a murder conviction by Jury on the basis of 'hypotheticals'?

We do need to question these proceedings. This is our Justice system.
This smells worse each day. IMHO.

Technicality in Law may be that when Defence Barrister requested of Judge Byrne that charge be changed to 'Unlawful Killing', and was refused; this was when the grounds for Appeal were set in motion (Defence probably knew at that moment it would eventually be useful if no hard Murder evidence came to light). In other words, it was a 'set up'.
...... and the Appeal Judges remained focussed on this technicality and didn't allow themselves to be swayed by other crucial circumstantial evidence that followed.

 

[Sor Juana]

But Baden-Clay agreed he contacted a life insurance company on May 1, kind of too soon after the body was found.

 

[Fuskier]

Technicality in Law may be that when Defence Barrister requested of Judge Byrne that charge be changed to 'Unlawful Killing', and was refused; this was when the grounds for Appeal were set in motion (Defence probably knew at that moment it would eventually be useful if no hard Murder evidence came to light). In other words, it was a 'set up'.
...... and the Appeal Judges remained focussed on this technicality and didn't allow themselves to be swayed by other crucial circumstantial evidence that followed.

Isn't the purpose of Trial by Jury (i.e. reasonable men/women) to dispense Justice? We believe it is.
Are three Appellate Judges deemed 'reasonable men/women'? In their legal capacity I would argue not. In their legal capacity they are experts in Law.

So the verdict reached by reasonable men/women (the Jury) was downgraded by legal experts (Appellate Judges). Is this downgrade on the basis of a legal technicality?

IMO the judgement of the reasonable men/women should stand. There was enough evidence for the Jury to reach the conclusion they did. No injustice was done.
Their judgement should not have been subsequently changed by legal experts on a legal technicality IMO.

This kind of 'game' of legal technicalities is where reasonable men/women feel frustrated with our Justice system.
My opinion only.

 

[Sor Juana]

However the absence of Allison in his life was the logical answer to his debt and infidelity problems, which to many constitutes enough of a motive. His world was a ticking time bomb. Nothing can convince me otherwise.

I could not agree more. In many other murder cases the lesser amount of money from insurance could be accepted as a motive with no questions, for some reason in the Baden-Clay case $1million at stake is kind of downplayed.

 

[Couldbe]

Isn't the purpose of Trial by Jury (i.e. reasonable men/women) to dispense Justice? We believe it is.
Are three Appellate Judges deemed 'reasonable men/women'? In their legal capacity I would argue not. In their legal capacity they are experts in Law.

So the verdict reached by reasonable men/women (the Jury) was downgraded by legal experts (Appellate Judges). Is this downgrade on the basis of a legal technicality?

IMO the judgement of the reasonable men/women should stand. There was enough evidence for the Jury to reach the conclusion they did. No injustice was done.
Their judgement should not have been subsequently changed by legal experts on a legal technicality IMO.

This kind of 'game' of legal technicalities is where reasonable men/women feel frustrated with our Justice system.
My opinion only.

All so very true Fuskier ....... agree totally, and I think there lies the real problem. Probably not going to happen, but maybe the Appeal Judges who would be allocated to hear any Appeal should be included to sit in on the Trial, then they would know exactly what occurred; not just trying to view it after the event. Somehow, I see a connection in the following: "The hindsight bias is defined as a tendency to change a recollection from an original thought to something different because of newly provided information". Not exactly this, as they weren't there in the first place, but they are trying to employ it ... as if they were!
I think the experienced Defence Barrister knew about the 'loophole' in the Law and used it to his advantage.

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/baden-clay-not-alone-manipulating-crime-scenes/2867976/

Baden-Clay not alone in manipulating crime scenes
9th Dec 2015

Dr Claire Ferguson is an expert on crime scene staging in QUT's School of Justice.
GERARD Baden-Clay is among the 3 to 8% of homicide offenders who manipulate evidence at a crime scene to mislead investigators in order to avoid arrest, a QUT forensic criminologist says.

Dr Claire Ferguson, from QUT's School of Justice says people who stage a crime scene had often killed an intimate partner or someone else who was known to them.

"Sometimes the staging is meticulously planned in advance but it can also be impromptu after an unintended killing- it may be 'I've killed him/her - I can't go to prison for the rest of my life'," Dr Ferguson said.

"Relative to other offenders who stage scenes, Baden-Clay's efforts were more sophisticated and required quite a bit of effort - moving the body, disposing of it, cleaning up evidence and creating a façade of a grieving husband for police and the public...

 

[alioop]

Although not 'premeditated' (although to so quickly have in his mind where he would take her body, he most likely had the idea run through his head ...... although his statements about being 'free' were there for all to see), I wonder about what 'unlawful killing' is when it is compared to Manslaughter or Murder?

Unlawful killing comprises both manslaughter and murder. A lawful killing would be where the killer has a successful defence. GBC is a convicted killer, in terms of manslaughter as the appeal court decided the prosecution did not prove intent to murder or cause grevious bodily harm, either premeditated or spur of the moment intent.

See video.

I'm going to cling with hope to this article and pray this egg-head knows what she's talking about.


Gerard Baden-Clay 'still facing decade behind bars' despite being acquitted of murdering wife

Gerard Baden-Clay has not "gotten away with it" despite being acquitted of murdering his wife and can still expect to spend at least 10 years in jail, legal experts say.

University of Queensland criminal law expert Professor Heather Douglas said a life sentence was still possible given Baden-Clay's "lack of remorse" about the killing.

"People think he has gotten away with it but the fact is, he hasn't," Professor Douglas told ninemsn.
"I expect there will still be a strong sentence, given he tried to cover up the killing, insinuated she had mental illness, and pretended to look for her.

"Judges have had a strong view that strong sentences are appropriate to denounce these kinds of cases."

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...ll-facing-decade-behind-bars-for-killing-wife

I think Professor Douglas is spot on.


Something else I wanted to say about articles I have read re this case where Rose Batty is said to say that proving an intent to murder should take into account where there is a history of domestic violence. I don't know if this is what she did say, but we have to remember there was no evidence of domestic violence by GBC to Allison. Absolutely nothing. Problems in the marriage yes, but violence, verbal or physical, no.

 

[alioop]

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/baden-clay-not-alone-manipulating-crime-scenes/2867976/

Baden-Clay not alone in manipulating crime scenes
9th Dec 2015

Dr Claire Ferguson is an expert on crime scene staging in QUT's School of Justice.
GERARD Baden-Clay is among the 3 to 8% of homicide offenders who manipulate evidence at a crime scene to mislead investigators in order to avoid arrest, a QUT forensic criminologist says.

Dr Claire Ferguson, from QUT's School of Justice says people who stage a crime scene had often killed an intimate partner or someone else who was known to them.

"Sometimes the staging is meticulously planned in advance but it can also be impromptu after an unintended killing- it may be 'I've killed him/her - I can't go to prison for the rest of my life'," Dr Ferguson said.

"Relative to other offenders who stage scenes, Baden-Clay's efforts were more sophisticated and required quite a bit of effort - moving the body, disposing of it, cleaning up evidence and creating a façade of a grieving husband for police and the public...

Absolutely. And this manipulation of the crime scene is what will weigh heavily against him when it comes to sentencing.

At the end of the day it's about the punishment he gets for killing Allison and about the message it sends to the community about how society deals with intimate partner violence. Whether it's murder or manslaughter, he killed her and no one alive except him was witness to exactly how Allison died so we just don't know if there was intent or not.

 

[possumheart]

Unlawful killing comprises both manslaughter and murder. A lawful killing would be where the killer has a successful defence. GBC is a convicted killer, in terms of manslaughter as the appeal court decided the prosecution did not prove intent to murder or cause grevious bodily harm, either premeditated or spur of the moment intent.





I think Professor Douglas is spot on.


Something else I wanted to say about articles I have read re this case where Rose Batty is said to say that proving an intent to murder should take into account where there is a history of domestic violence. I don't know if this is what she did say, but we have to remember there was no evidence of domestic violence by GBC to Allison. Absolutely nothing. Problems in the marriage yes, but violence, verbal or physical, no.

I seem to remember Allison's cousin saying all of the signs were there — isolating Allison from friends and family, listening in on phone calls via the baby monitors ... I will have to look back. However, this was not part of the evidence, just hindsight.

 

[possumheart]

Ms Dann used the letter to point out some of the controlling behaviour Gerard Baden-Clay used towards his wife in the hope others might recognise it in their own relationships.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e/news-story/584ed6cbe11d7ab345bd9e5ca2614dfc

 

[Trooper]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...r-dutton-lashes-out-over-court-ruling/7016686

* how horrid to be on the same page as Dutton, but this is yet another thing that Gerard has done that is repulsive. .. ..

 

[Couldbe]

Unlawful killing comprises both manslaughter and murder. A lawful killing would be where the killer has a successful defence. GBC is a convicted killer, in terms of manslaughter as the appeal court decided the prosecution did not prove intent to murder or cause grevious bodily harm, either premeditated or spur of the moment intent.

I think Professor Douglas is spot on.

Something else I wanted to say about articles I have read re this case where Rose Batty is said to say that proving an intent to murder should take into account where there is a history of domestic violence. I don't know if this is what she did say, but we have to remember there was no evidence of domestic violence by GBC to Allison. Absolutely nothing. Problems in the marriage yes, but violence, verbal or physical, no.

Thank you Alioop. As always, really appreciate your such knowledgeable input. For me, when I become familiar with your Law explanations, it does enlighten me as to the framework in which the cases are structured, and Judgments have to be formed ...... e.g. Legal meaning of 'Unlawful killing'. The timeframe for where 'spur of the moment intent', in Gerard's case, could have been formed 1 second outside of the act, but this musn't be acceptable in the interpretation; although, for me, his actions would have turned it into Murder there and then; especially given financial motive and support of the motive in claiming life insurance at the earliest opportunity (the day a body was found at the creek...his Father lodged the claim for him ..we heard during the Trial).

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Hello everyone - Good to hear from you all again, though in a very bad situation.

I sort of get the reason for the appeal decision, but have many questions about the decision:

During the trial the defence requested changing the charge to unlawful killing. Does this mean that they had GBC's support for this? - ie Were they in fact saying that GBC was prepared to confess to accidentally killing Allison?

I don't remember at what stage of the trial they made this request. Was it before GBC took the stand and swore on oath that he had nothing to do with Allison's death?

The trial and its evidence were about murder, not manslaughter. Consequently, I think that the question of manslaughter versus murder wasn't covered. The appeal decision was based on the murder trial information. I can't recall any trial discussion about a hit on the head that was so bad that Allison would have died immediately. However, one fatal blow is now seen as a distinct possibility. Was there any sign of the head trauma needed to support this?

For a number of reasons (including the fingernail scratches) I think that Allison was killed at close range to her murderer - probably strangled. Would strangulation during a heated argument (rather than falling on a hard surface) be regarded as manslaughter rather than murder?

Hope my learned fellow websleuths will be able to clarify these for me. Thank you in advance.