A question alioop, if GBC is committed for trial and there is information on records that can't be shown to a jury, will the entire record be kept from them or would the 'offending' bit be crossed out or something? As an example totally unrelated of course; say perhaps on a forensic report of a telephone there was a number of contact types including phone calls, emails, text messages, facetime calls etc - and only one of those calls was unable to be shown to the jury - would the details of just that call be somehow blacked out - or would the entire report be unable to be used? Just curious...?
As a general rule the prosecution decides what evidence it presents to a jury and in what form, so if they chose to present a document with items blacked out for example then I don't see that would be a problem unless the defence had a problem with it. If it was info that supported innocence for eg then the defence would justifiably object to the blacked out bits.
<modsnip>
At the bail hearing, I heard the discussion between Judge Applegarth and the defence barrister Peter Davis about GBC's explanation of the googling "the fifth" in some detail. GBC filed an affidavit explaining it. Just because he has explained it doesn't mean the prosecution accepts his explanation. I don't think Danny Boyle was too worried about this "explanation" . Just after that, I did hear the words 'Facetime call mentioned by the judge" but that was it. There was no discussion as such. So I have no idea what is going on with that facetime call.
I think Indemnity and Immunity might mean almost the same thing in this sense. Perhaps alioop can confirm?
Way back before the arrest of GBC there was MSM gossip regarding Indemnity/Immunity. There is a report about it here;
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...cessory-rejected/story-e6freon6-1226391562829
One thing I would like to point out is that the reporter speaking in the video infers that Brookfield is in Paul Tullys area, which is incorrect. Paul Tully is an Ipswich City Councillor. Brookfield is in Brisbane City Council and our councillor is Margaret de Wit.
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/abou...y/councillors-wards/pullenvale-ward/index.htm
http://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/about_council/mayor_and_councillors/division_2/
An
indemnity arises when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been or might be incurred by another individual. The right to indemnity and the duty to indemnify ordinarily stem from a contractual agreement, which generally protects against liability, loss, or damage.
It would make perfect sense to me if GBC's lawyers required his parents to provide an indemnity to them for their costs as a condition of representing him. Which means they have to pay if he can't. So if there is any local gossip about an indemnity then that is likely what it is about.
Immunity from prosecution occurs when a prosecutor grants immunity, usually to a witness in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence. It is immunity because the prosecutor essentially agrees to never prosecute the crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for said evidence.
We will have to wait and see if anyone has been granted immunity in this case. Hopefully it will be apparent at the committal.
I use Facetime and I'm pretty sure the calls don't show up on phone records, but I know they do show up on the actual phone. IMO
The face time call is not on GBC's telstra phone records, it was extracted from his actual phone just prior the first bail hearing. This is because it uses internet, and is not a normal call. The texts he sent to Allison that morning were similarly sent as imessages not SMS as they both had iphones so they didn't show up in his SMS telstra records either. The face time and those imessages clearly show on the phone extraction record as I have seen them. They were exhibited to an affidavit filed by the police in that bail application.
lease:
