The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 23rd June - Trial Day 8-Jurors Visit Kholo/Brookfield

[Indromum]

I topped up the flowers at Kholo creek yesterday knowing the jury would be visiting. It's such a long time since I have been there. The memorial is lovely.

 

[ollijack]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ing-wife-allison/story-fnihsrf2-1226963349790

That is the loveliest photo I have ever seen of Allison, she is so beautiful.:tyou:

 

[missfisher]

Ohhh Possum, you are correct...it's so bloody sad and pointless.
He should be made to be there, why why does he have so much choice, its not fair.

lease:

I think it would be extraordinarily intimidating and distracting for the jury if he was there.

 

[Amee]

I topped up the flowers at Kholo creek yesterday knowing the jury would be visiting. It's such a long time since I have been there. The memorial is lovely.

Thank You Indromum :loveyou:

The flowers look beautiful

https://twitter.com/leoniemellor/status/480856973995294720/photo/1

 

[Amee]

Kate Kyriacou ‏@KateKyriacou 3m

The jury is looking through the house and exploring the carport area. #badenclay

 

[Amee]

3hours ago

Katrina Blowers ‏@katrinablowers 3h

Handwritten notes have been removed at Allison #badenclay 's Kholo Ck memorial ahead of jury visit. @7NewsBrisbane pic.twitter.com/HWr4BPYVqA

 

[ollijack]

Thank You Indromum :loveyou:

The flowers look beautiful

https://twitter.com/leoniemellor/status/480856973995294720/photo/1

Thankyou indromum for doing that.....I live so far away, I so appreciate what you did xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


PS. I know everyone is right, it wouldn't have been good if he had been there, just writing with my heart and not my head.....grrrrr


:banghead::banghead:

 

[Thinking]

Kate Kyriacou @KateKyriacou

Jury appears to be looking at the area where the bank drops down towards the creek. #badenclay

I wonder if the prosecution is allowed to tell them what the police think happened while they are there looking at the area - or do they have to stay quiet and let the jury take it all in and form their own view (this is probably a silly question)....

 

[marlywings]

Kate Kyriacou @KateKyriacou

The jury has left the house and is back on the bus. #badenclay

 

[LadyBird1]

I think it may have been quite prejudicial to the accused if he attended the site viewings. He would surely have some reaction or awkward body language which would be seen by judge and jury members. Best he is not there from all aspects of the situation. JMO

Is the jury not allowed to take into account his awkward body language or reaction? I don't understand that he should protected like that.
I was thinking about his initial police interviews, when he appeared quite animated whilst talking about himself. Could look the interviewer in the eye.
Then when the questions were about Allison, he looked downwards, got fidgety, and didn't look the interviewer in the eye.
When I was a little girl, and my (quite strict) parents wanted to know the truth about a matter, I, along with my siblings, were instructed "Look me in the eye, and tell me that!"
That was an entirely different equation.

 

[Amee]

Katrina Blowers ‏@katrinablowers 2h

Prosecutors and lawyers for Gerard #badenclay arrive Kholo Ck, where Allison's body was discovered. @7NewsBrisbane pic.twitter.com/MZcKTAJMF5

 

[Amee]

Kate Kyriacou ‏@KateKyriacou 1m

We're done for the day. Back at court tomorrow. #badenclay

 

[Isabellnecessary]

'At the house, jurors will be asked to have a look at specific areas like the carport, the driveway, as well as where the bedrooms are in the house.'

Interesting mention about the bedrooms... Moo


Source, ABC article

 

[BJsleuth]

Is other jury not allowed to take into account his awkward body language or reaction? I don't understand that he should protected like that.
I was thinking about his initial police interviews, when he appeared quite animated whilst talking about himself. Could look the interviewer in the eye.
Then when the questions were about Allison, he looked downwards, got fidgety, and didn't look the interviewer in the eye.
When I was a little girl, and my (quite strict) parents wanted to know the truth about a matter, I, along with my siblings, were instructed "Look me in the eye, and tell me that!"
That was an entirely different equation.

No, only on the evidence (what witnesses testify to under oath).

 

[possumheart]

I topped up the flowers at Kholo creek yesterday knowing the jury would be visiting. It's such a long time since I have been there. The memorial is lovely.

You are a treasure, Indromum!
:skip:

 

[AAAA]

On my way back past the house the jury had arrived. They were all in a group at the beginning of the driveway looking down the left hand side of the property. There were all up about 30 people, including barristers and what looked like security (plain clothes), and tonnes of cars and media.

 

[alioop]

It is worth keeping in mind that "beyond reasonable doubt" is NOT "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The narrative either adds up to a cohesive, believable sequence of events or it doesn't.

Either: Allison's cheating husband, facing financial ruin and under pressure from his mistress to end his marriage once and for all, killed his heavily insured wife (and am I right in thinking her death occurred on the last day she was covered by a policy they couldn't afford to renew?), transported her body in the car where blood was later found, and dumped her off a bridge

Or

Allison killed herself, via an unknown/undetectable mechanism, in a location she was either transported to by unknown means/person(s) who haven't come forward, or she walked to in the dark for in excess of two hours...

Or

Allison was killed by an unknown person who didn't rob or rape her...

And Gerard's facial abrasions were genuinely caused by a razor even though experts find that highly improbable...

And she coincidentally picked up botanical traces that match the low growth around her house...

And the blood came to be there by innocent means in the brief time she'd owned the car...

The question isn't: is it possible to find another explanation for each individual piece of information? The question is: taken as a whole, is it reasonable to conclude the prosecution's case is the most likely explanation? Is it reasonable to believe it was a series of increasingly unlikely coincidences - he just so happens to self inflict unusual shaving cuts on the very day his wife was killed in a random attack by a stranger, which is a very unusual murder (see: Jill Meagher), which coincidentally happened as his self-imposed deadline approached to leave his wife, etc.

I believe a reasonable person would be required to accept far too much happenstance to conclude he was innocent. Any alternate scenarios I can think of require too much of the fantastical to seriously challenge the simple explanation: the man with means, motive and circumstantial evidence pointing to him is the one who did it.

Thank you for this great post.

I wonder if the prosecution is allowed to tell them what the police think happened while they are there looking at the area - or do they have to stay quiet and let the jury take it all in and form their own view (this is probably a silly question)....

I think the lawyers have to stay quiet and may not even talk to the jury at all. Someone else will have the role of pointing out the relevant info they need to know, like exactly where Allison's body was etc. basic known facts, no theories or speculation.
I think it's a good thing GBC didn't want to go, maybe on advice of his lawyers. It would have turned it into a bigger circus with security issues for his safety and the safety of others.

 

[Not Poirot]

Surely if the prosecution were going to mention the roundabout they'd have done it before the jury were taken to Brookfield? So the jury would understand the lay of the land completely? I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to feel mighty dubious that the prosecution have any dazzling roundabout evidence up their sleeves

 

[KG1]

Is the jury not allowed to take into account his awkward body language or reaction? I don't understand that he should protected like that.
I was thinking about his initial police interviews, when he appeared quite animated whilst talking about himself. Could look the interviewer in the eye.
Then when the questions were about Allison, he looked downwards, got fidgety, and didn't look the interviewer in the eye.
When I was a little girl, and my (quite strict) parents wanted to know the truth about a matter, I, along with my siblings, were instructed "Look me in the eye, and tell me that!"
That was an entirely different equation.

If he was required/made to go to the scenes and had no choice, any reaction/behaviour by him, seen by the jury, could be used as grounds of appeal if he is convicted, as it could be taken as placing him in a situation where he was vulnerable, and therefore that was prejudicial to him. However, if he had a choice about going, and went, then that is a choice he made and any observations by a jury, could hardly be held to be prejudicial or grounds for appeal- similar to their observations of him in the court room. MOO

 

[Indromum]

Surely if the prosecution were going to mention the roundabout they'd have done it before the jury were taken to Brookfield? So the jury would understand the lay of the land completely? I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to feel mighty dubious that the prosecution have any dazzling roundabout evidence up their sleeves

I think you may be right!