Search results

There will probably be applications for custody and access now that the trial is over. I don't know whether there were any temporary orders granting custody to the Dickies or not. It depends upon whether a Court grants him access to the children. I don't know about Australian law but in NZ it...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-15/baden-clay-trial-defence-argued-no-evidence-to-support-murder/5584414 ""If what happened was, after she scratched him, she fell forward, bumped her head and died of a subdural haemorrhage, his conduct afterwards looks pretty odd. "If a death had been an...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/how-murder-almost-left-table/story-e6frg6n6-1226990215616# What do you all think about this? Does it mean that GBC was prepared to accept he was responsible for Allison's death? I don't think that he was, for what it's worth, but I'm kinda surprised they...

I don't know if this has been posted yet -- coming in and out of the discussion cos I have work to do, damnit. http://www.smh.com.au/queensland/badenclay-witness-once-coconspirator-in-us-killing-20140715-zt7xu.html

Guilty!

I just have a interest in homicide generally (that sounds terrible actually -- I mean from an academic point of view!) and human behaviour. I heard about the case because my cousin lives in Brisbane.

I'm in the tron too :)

Lol. No, there are only two places in NZ where it is foggy. The North Island and the South Island!

Well I'm actually confused now because there is Wellington which is foggy. Then there's Hamilton...which is foggy. And Palmerston North which is also...foggy!

Nothing wrong with being a kiwi, just saying :) Although the weather here does suck!

Yes this can be quite confusing to a jury in my view. It's similar to the direction that just because he refrained from making a statement doesn't mean he is guilty. Basically the jury are not allowed to infer that *just because* he lied he is guilty. But they can take his lies into account in...

Yes there has to be grounds for an appeal, but this could be anything. They could, for example, argue that some evidence shouldn't have been admitted, or that the Judge erred in summing up, or that counsel was incompetent...there is a wide range of potential grounds.

Yes, I agree, but GBC is not arguing manslaughter after saying he didn't do it initially. Im looking at the jury deciding manslaughter or Murder based on the evidence. In which case, cleaning up and covering up after the fact doesn't mean intention to kill in the first place. Though to you and I...

Yes, that's right. Some people kill unintentionally and try and cover it up. But it makes it very hard to then go back and argue manslaughter if your first defence is that you didn't do it in the first place. It's like when some people accused of rape say oh no, I don't even know her, but then...

"Kate Kyriacou ‏@KateKyriacou 1m The juror says they would like a paragraph referring to manslaughter and another where Gerard said "I did not kill my wife". #badenclay" Ruh roh.

Yeah, I can't imagine there will not be an appeal if there is a conviction.

My initial thoughts back in the early days was that it could have been manslaughter if he lashed out and hit her but didn't mean to kill her, which does happen with frightening regularity actually (they call them "one punch killers"). But the problem with that scenario in this case is everything...

Unfortunately if he is acquitted he stands to regain custody of his children...

I wonder if it might be the other way around -- often male jurors will have little sympathy for someone they suspect has been violent to women or children. This is all speculative, obviously.

I don't know about law in Australia, but if it was here in NZ I doubt that much would be done about them looking up info on jury deliberations. The only case I know of where there was a successful appeal (actually and English case) was where jury used a ouija board! There has to be a real risk...