The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 10th July - Trial Day 18

[Freya1977]

Hello.. I have followed this case since Allison went missing & quietly followed the threads on WS from the very beginning. I only recently joined this site as I wanted to say a big thankyou to all the people that have posted over the last 2 years. Like alot of you, I have felt a rollercoaster of emotions during this time & learnt a bit more about life & how very precious it can be..

I hope & pray that justice is done for Allison, her Parents & her Girls.. :angel:

Welcome, Angel! Great that you decided to join the conversation.

 

[Trooper]

1. Heated argument over TM.
2. Argument becomes physical - slaps, scratches.
3. GBC restrains ABC.
4. In the course of restraining ABC, GBC smothers and kills her.
5. GBC panics and hides the body, then concocts a story that ABC must have gone walking.

You have the following elements of murder established beyond reasonable doubt:

• GBC killed ABC
• The killing was unlawful

However, you have not established beyond reasonable doubt that GBC intended to kill or do GBH to ABC. Therefore the only verdict open to the jury is guilty of manslaughter.

Gerard says he was asleep.. Gerard says, there was no argument.. Gerard says he knows nothing of panic and hiding the body and making up a story. Gerard says he didn't do it, she did it to herself. That's Gerards case. That's the defence he has paid for, and that is the defence his legal team argued. A jury cannot go beyond what the defendant has stated.

Gerard no more wants a manslaughter verdict than I do. There is one reason and one only why Gerard hasn't led a case for the argument, the panic, the restraint, all that stuff, is because a manslaughter conviction doesn't get him the money. He murdered for the money.

 

[Thinking]

Just a comment. Bit disappointed the PT didn't point out (unless I missed it) the extreme fear that Allison must have experienced; it must have been terrifying knowing what was happening, then recognizing that this attacker was her husband, the man she loved, trying to kill her; then within seconds, she desperately tried to fight for her life against her own husband, the alleged attacker. The amount of terror, the visions of the 3 little girls, the fact that nobody would know, etc. :rose:

Perhaps this will be discussed at sentencing Fuskier . I think of all these emotions she must have felt, often

 

[Freya1977]

1. Heated argument over TM.
2. Argument becomes physical - slaps, scratches.
3. GBC restrains ABC.
4. In the course of restraining ABC, GBC smothers and kills her.
5. GBC panics and hides the body, then concocts a story that ABC must have gone walking.

You have the following elements of murder established beyond reasonable doubt:

• GBC killed ABC
• The killing was unlawful

However, you have not established beyond reasonable doubt that GBC intended to kill or do GBH to ABC. Therefore the only verdict open to the jury is guilty of manslaughter.

This scenario also manages to turn the victim into the attacker.

 

[Her Honour]

Do the Po-po know you hoisted their doughnuts?

And don't tell me you watch The Killing? Po-po, ha!

 

[MRSA]

So if he covers her mouth and nose "restraining" her till she dies, that's not intent?

It might be intent. But I never said anything about covering her mouth and nose until she dies. Consider a scenario where he restrains ABC but inadvertently smothers her.

When she's clawing at him and clearly suffocating, how is that not intent? He'd stop the restraint.

It might be intent. But I never said anything about her clawing at him and clearly suffocating. Consider a scenario where he restrains ABC but inadvertently smothers her.

He has no right to restrain her anyway.

Restraining someone unlawfully is not an element of murder anyway.

What exactly constitutes GBH?

Bodily injury endangering life or causing permanent injury to health (or likely to do same).

This scenario also manages to turn the victim into the attacker.

How so? GBC could have attached ABC in this scenario.

Gerard no more wants a manslaughter verdict than I do. There is one reason and one only why Gerard hasn't led a case for the argument, the panic, the restraint, all that stuff, is because a manslaughter conviction doesn't get him the money. He murdered for the money.

Disagree in part. Yes he wants to be acquitted, but I'm sure he'd take a consolation prize of a manslaughter conviction.

 

[kiwi50]

Which case was this?

The David Bain retrial.

 

[Snails]

Gerard says he was asleep.. Gerard says, there was no argument.. Gerard says he knows nothing of panic and hiding the body and making up a story. Gerard says he didn't do it, she did it to herself. That's Gerards case. That's the defence he has paid for, and that is the defence his legal team argued. A jury cannot go beyond what the defendant has stated.

Gerard no more wants a manslaughter verdict than I do. There is one reason and one only why Gerard hasn't led a case for the argument, the panic, the restraint, all that stuff, is because a manslaughter conviction doesn't get him the money. He murdered for the money.

Just one small thing - Gerred isn't paying his defence team. We, the taxpayers are paying for it as he is the recipient of legal aid, which I guess he's entitled to.

 

[MRSA]

The David Bain retrial.

Thanks kiwi (and others), I was aware of the David Bain trials but had no idea the jury members were behaving that way.

 

[Trooper]

It might be intent. But I never said anything about covering her mouth and nose until she dies. Consider a scenario where he restrains ABC but inadvertently smothers her.

It might be intent. But I never said anything about her clawing at him and clearly suffocating. Consider a scenario where he restrains ABC but inadvertently smothers her.

Restraining someone unlawfully is not an element of murder anyway.

Bodily injury endangering life or causing permanent injury to health (or likely to do same).

How so? GBC could have attached ABC in this scenario.

Disagree in part. Yes he wants to be acquitted, but I'm sure he'd take a consolation prize of a manslaughter conviction.

it isn't the business of the jury to consider 'scenario's' unless they have been placed in evidence.. other wise this jury, or any jury would have the leeway to meander off into scenario's of all colours and hues.. it could have been terrorists, patrolling the outskirts of Brookfield, Allison being the first strike against the New World Order stuff, it could have been a bushy haired stranger, it could have been a forgotten cranky customer from the real estate business , out for revenge.. it could have been the Queensland Country Women's Association hit squad seething with rage over Allisons recipe for lamingtons.. ...

If Gerard wanted the 'consolation prize' of a lesser charge, he had that opportunity over the past two years, and could have led it at his committal hearing. But he didn't . He pleaded Not Guilty then , and Not Guilty at this Supreme Court trial. Not Guilty to Murder.

 

[marlywings]

A reminder to all members.

Unless you're a Verified Professional with us, if you state something as fact, especially legal type information, then you need to supply a relevant link to support that info.

No link = no post

 

[MRSA]

it isn't the business of the jury to consider 'scenario's' unless they have been placed in evidence.. other wise this jury, or any jury would have the leeway to meander off into scenario's of all colours and hues.. it could have been terrorists, patrolling the outskirts of Brookfield, Allison being the first strike against the New World Order stuff, it could have been a bushy haired stranger, it could have been a forgotten cranky customer from the real estate business , out for revenge.. it could have been the Queensland Country Women's Association hit squad seething with rage over Allisons recipe for lamingtons..

My hypothetical scenario was simply to demonstrate circumstances in which a jury might return a verdict of manslaughter where they were not satisified that the element of intent had been made out.

If Gerard wanted the 'consolation prize' of a lesser charge, he had that opportunity over the past two years, and could have led it at his committal hearing. But he didn't . He pleaded Not Guilty then , and Not Guilty at this Supreme Court trial. Not Guilty to Murder.

I'd still wager that he'd take a conviction for manslaughter over a conviction for murder in a heartbeart, notwithstanding that he's put all his eggs in the acquittal basket.

 

[JK673]

So if he covers her mouth and nose "restraining" her till she dies, that's not intent? When she's clawing at him and clearly suffocating, how is that not intent? He'd stop the restraint. He has no right to restrain her anyway. What exactly constitutes GBH?

You are correct Freya - that IS intent.

not intent is running over someone who jumps out in front of your car and you cannot stop in time for example. Smothering someone while they are clawing at your face and you keep going IS intent. YOU are correct.

 

[Freya1977]

It might be intent. But I never said anything about covering her mouth and nose until she dies. Consider a scenario where he restrains ABC but inadvertently smothers her.

I really can't imagine how. Why would she need to be restrained? Because she's attacking him? What kind of restraint accidentally smothers someone? I'd say restraining her in the first place is unlawful so not sure how that would effect it.

It might be intent. But I never said anything about her clawing at him and clearly suffocating. Consider a scenario where he restrains ABC but inadvertently smothers her.

No you didn't say that but the evidence on Gerards face says that she clawed him.

Restraining someone unlawfully is not an element of murder anyway.

Even if they die while you're doing it?

Bodily injury endangering life or causing permanent injury to health (or likely to do same).

Thanks. So this is the definition of GBH?

 

[Freya1977]

How so? GBC could have attached ABC in this scenario.

You said scratching and slapping. Gerard is the one with the scratches and Allison is the one being restrained in this scenario, so I don't think you meant that it was Gerard doing the attacking.

 

[possumheart]

So this is the definition of GBH?

Is GBH GBC's cousin?
Attempt at humour.

 

[Freya1977]

You are correct Freya - that IS intent.

not intent is running over someone who jumps out in front of your car and you cannot stop in time for example. Smothering someone while they are clawing at your face and you keep going IS intent. YOU are correct.

That seems to make sense to me.... From how the judge described it anyway

 

[Trooper]

My hypothetical scenario was simply to demonstrate circumstances in which a jury might return a verdict of manslaughter where they were not satisified that the element of intent had been made out.

I'd still wager that he'd take a conviction for manslaughter over a conviction for murder in a heartbeart, notwithstanding that he's put all his eggs in the acquittal basket.

obviously, Gerard hasn't considered it . ..he can, any accused can , change his mind , could have changed his plea .. at his bail hearing , at his committal hearing and even up to his Trial date.. He didn't. That's why it's where it is this very hour. Jury out deliberating on whether Gerard Baden-Clay is guilty as charged by the State of Qld in the matter of the murder of his wife, Allison Baden-Clay... way past the hypothetical stage.

 

[catswhiskers]

it isn't the business of the jury to consider 'scenario's' unless they have been placed in evidence.. other wise this jury, or any jury would have the leeway to meander off into scenario's of all colours and hues.. it could have been terrorists, patrolling the outskirts of Brookfield, Allison being the first strike against the New World Order stuff, it could have been a bushy haired stranger, it could have been a forgotten cranky customer from the real estate business , out for revenge.. it could have been the Queensland Country Women's Association hit squad seething with rage over Allisons recipe for lamingtons.. ...

If Gerard wanted the 'consolation prize' of a lesser charge, he had that opportunity over the past two years, and could have led it at his committal hearing. But he didn't . He pleaded Not Guilty then , and Not Guilty at this Supreme Court trial. Not Guilty to Murder.

I've been wondering about this too - how can a jury find him guilty of manslaughter when he has so vehemently denied playing any role in Allison's death. He has gone to great lengths to explain away her disappearance and death and the evidence against him, so why would a jury even consider it manslaughter? Maybe others have some cases they can recall when this has happened without the defendant actually admitting to playing some part in someone's death?

 

[Freya1977]

Is GBH GBC's cousin?
Attempt at humour.

Lol!!