Discussion in 'Allison Baden-Clay General Discussion Threads' started by SoSueMe, May 18, 2012.
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: ... I have 5 days off work!!!! :great:
Yes CC, that's what I think too. It should be on the sum of the evidence as a whole. It's just the reasonable doubt thing. It's very subjective don't you think?
I just looked it up in Wikipedia and what I understood is that the Prosecution have to prove their case to meet a standard defined as beyond "reasonable" doubt by a "reasonable" person, i.e. beyond doubt by a reasonable person (but this is my simplistic interpretation )
Oh good. I'm a very reasonable person lol. Most of the time. May not be quite so reasonable towards the end of school holidays. Lol.
This is my first day back after 5 days off & I was watching WS at every opportunity & I loved every minute. So, in essence, all you guys were with me on my holiday. :seeya:
Recent article in the courier mail about the attorney general of Qld looking at some changes to our criminal legal system. Our Chief Justice says he believes judges should be able to explain to juries the meaning of beyond reasonable doubt.
Aliens abducting her, probing her for hours and gaining much needed scientific data for a future invasion, and then dropping her at Kholo Creek cant be ruled out 100%. But is it reasonable? Is suicide a reasonable alternative explanation that suits the facts of this case? Is walking 14km (unseen, mind you) and jumping off a bridge a reasonable explanation given the circumstances (scratches with all the hallmarks of fingernails on husbands face, extra-marital affairs, googling self-incrimination before calling police, not going to search HQ while wife is missing, trying to collect insurance before positive ID, botanical matter from yard in Allisons hair, dire financial situation, blood traces in third row of car seats, screams heard from neighbours, lack of suicide note, Allison's unending love for her daughters and the FACT that she would never leave them)?
No, the lack of COD does not lead to reasonable doubt.
Was browsing the internet jobs and found this:
That's interesting Allioop . Does this mean the jury can hear of prior conviction before or after they have heard all the evidence ? I think if it was after and were told before they go off to deliberate then that's pretty fair
Yeeess, well that appears like a fairly reasonable explanation. Especially the alien invasion bit. Just ask GBC. Reckon he'll verify same. More than that, bet he's hoping like hell someone will suggest something just like that!
Welcome TFA13. That's a big list of circumstantial evidence and IMO that is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a whole lot more to come.
That made me laugh!
That, and all the talk about Aliens I might go have another glass of wine.
Gbc is recorded as saying that Allison was going to meet Kate in the morning to go to the conference . He then says "which I didn't know about ". Kate's statement will be fascinating .imo
CaseClosed, imagine if one of us was called for jury duty, there are are many of us it could happen. Imagine the questions... "Do you have an opinion on the gult or non guilt of this defendant?" Yep, I'm a member of websleuths and I believe he is guilty! Challenged! Sorry Marly if this is not ok, not disparaging WS at all, just surmising.
I think you would be sleuthed completely before you would be accepted on a jury ! Computer records etc . None of us have a chance .
But then you have to outsmart the legal team and say .. "Never heard about this case, who is he??" :blushing:
Circumstantial evidence is often more powerful than direct evidence. Its hard to fabricate circumstantial evidence .
I'm all for the innocent until proven guilt thing, but how can there be a reasonable explanation for ALL the pieces of circumstantial evidence?
I would love to know what else the prosecution has up their sleeves.
Stormyweather so funny. :floorlaugh: