September 1, 2016 11:30pm
[h=1]Legal experts say decision to testify was Gerard Baden-Clay’s ultimate downfall[/h]http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/legal-experts-say-decision-to-testify-was-gerard-badenclays-ultimate-downfall/news-story/df75cef31bc020ca5f98f27d3d16c959
........ Legal experts say decision to testify was Gerard Baden-Clay’s ultimate downfall
especially since, while he was under under Oath, his story of the events that night hadn't changed; no argument and no physical altercation.
As pointed out by the High Court Judges: his Defence had already told the Trial Judge (without the Jury being present) they were not suggesting that Allison had fallen and hit her head on bricks or cement.
........ This was in keeping with Baden Clay's story that 'he knew nothing'.
From the Order handed down by the High Court:
http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/browse
“There was some discussion at trial as to the basis on which
a verdict of manslaughter should be left to the jury as an alternative to murder.
In answer to the trial judge's question: "What is the reasonable hypothesis consistent with an absence of an intention to kill?", counsel for the respondent replied: "That, on the prosecution case, death was occasioned unintentionally." His Honour responded: "But there are no fractures of the head."
Counsel agreed with that observation, and in response to the trial judge's further remark: "So there's no suggestion that
she's fallen and hit her head on bricks or cement", counsel
answered: "No."
………Then:
“ Later, prior to the trial judge's summing up, his Honour canvassed with counsel for the respondent the possibility of a direction that the defence contended in the alternative that the conduct in question did not tend to prove an intentional killing.
Counsel for the respondent said the problem with that was "it's not our contention".
On this footing and without objection from the respondent, the hypothesis which the Court of Appeal held to be available to the respondent was not put before the jury. The alternative verdict of manslaughter was left to the jury because the Crown bore the onus of proving that the respondent acted with intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.”
JMO, from what the High Court have said, the Defence tried on a story in their Appeal to the Qld Court of Appeal against the Jury's decision which did not come from a valid base, given the events as they occurred during the Trial.
So ........ the premise of the Defence's Appeal against the Jury's Verdict of Murder was ill-founded.
