Gerard Baden Clay's murder appeal

[Sor Juana]

Gerard Baden-Clay among those who manipulate crime scenes to mislead investigations: researcher
http://www.news.com.au/national/que...r/news-story/4e3f28c5da6c39f9e1b56b2ac9344060

 

[Couldbe]

What I am struggling with is if the most senior trial judge on the Supreme Court, Judge Byrne, is essentially ( though surprisingly not directly) told by the court of appeal that he was wrong in dismissing a motion by the defence seeking to take murder off the table for lack of evidence to intent, then where is the confidence in any trial judge.

I am pleased that there is some better media commentary finally coming out to explain to the public that he is still a convicted killer, won't get Allison's insurances and should get a heavy sentence.

Thank you Alioop

Succinctly put ….. both the legal fraternity and the people (Jurors) are still learning from this case!

Consoling …… in that within this framework, the perpetrator won’t benefit financially in the way he had hoped, and won’t be on the loose to commit any further crimes for around 15 years; although 3 and a half years have been spent in total denial.

We will still feel let down by the Appeal Court ….. unless of course it can be proved that the Appeal Judges were not wrong in their decision.

Maybe there is an 'App'!!!

 

[BreakingNews]

What I am struggling with is if the most senior trial judge on the Supreme Court, Judge Byrne, is essentially ( though surprisingly not directly) told by the court of appeal that he was wrong in dismissing a motion by the defence seeking to take murder off the table for lack of evidence to intent, then where is the confidence in any trial judge.

I am pleased that there is some better media commentary finally coming out to explain to the public that he is still a convicted killer, won't get Allison's insurances and should get a heavy sentence.

Thanks Alioop. Do you see this being overturned?:rollercoaster:

 

[whatif?]

Found this morning, hope it's ok to put here. There is talk of a gathering in Brisbane on Friday the 18th, further details to come.

https://www.facebook.com/doingit4allison/

 

[fairydust]

Actually, the appeal documentation shows nothing of the sort, so far from 'quite well' as to call into question one's capacity to judge. .

An appeal court judgement isn't the last word, I feel I must make this clear. It can be appealed ,also. .

And... there is the political and community backlash that can, and sometimes does make all the difference. . it doesn't appear that the community in general is willing to accept the perspective of the Appellate court, and does, in fact, require a rethink.

Actually the appeal transcript does show it , <modsnip>

Decisions are made on fact based evidence, and not the bleatings of pitchforked angry crowds. And thank God for that, else justice would never be anywhere near impartial.

Appeals may be re examined and over turned, but it is uncommon when it is an attempt to re interpret exactly what has gone before. Only when new evidence or the like is adduced, are appeals usually over turned.

My Clay will be on home detention in 2018 I'd say.

 

[Couldbe]

If one views a Court case as a &#8216;game&#8217; of one Lawyer being pitted against another, the result is that one of them loses
&#8230;. The loser isn&#8217;t proved to have been wrong; just that the winner, during the &#8216;game&#8217;, used the better tactic with the tendered evidence.

Guess we have to accept that our Justice system is the best we can have at the moment.

 

[Trooper]

Actually the appeal transcript does show it , <modsnip>

Decisions are made on fact based evidence, and not the bleatings of pitchforked angry crowds. And thank God for that, else justice would never be anywhere near impartial.

Appeals may be re examined and over turned, but it is uncommon when it is an attempt to re interpret exactly what has gone before. Only when new evidence or the like is adduced, are appeals usually over turned.

My Clay will be on home detention in 2018 I'd say.

Actually, I regret to inform, obviously, the Appeal statement wasn't quite clear, as you claim, otherwise why would it be disputed from one end of the country to the other? . No one disputes a 'clear' verdict. Everyone knows that. ..

It isn't that uncommon when an Appeals verdict is different from a jury verdict and is disputed when it doesn't bring up new evidence and merely relies on interpretation of the evidence given. Which, if I may remind you, was adjudged by a jury to be evidence of murderous intent. .

Only when new evidence is given is an appeal likely to succeed. As is perfectly obvious, and goes without stating, however, state it I will, this appeal under discussion has attempted to do exactly that. Conclude a new verdict without new evidence/ re-interpret the evidence a jury has already found to portray murderous intent.

Hence, it is most likely to be re appealed by the DPP and most likely be put aside, and our boy Gerard will be whistling Dixie until 2030 when he applies for bail and gets knocked back because he just cant bring himself to tell the truth about his wife's murder.

Because, as you know, parole relies very much on R.E.M.O.R.S.E. .. something that Gerard has yet to grasp.

 

[Trooper]

...you know... I don't mind at all being labelled as part of the pitchfork crowd.. I don't think any community can progress , or thrive, or live in the necessary degree of safety and harmony if the murderous and the dangerous among us are not kept in some sort of constraint, after due process.

It is airyfairy to hold the idea that tolerance of murder , especially the murder of women, by men, has some sort of status and therefore should be accepted. That truly has to be the way to extreme diminishment and dullness, of both the perpetrator and the encourager ,who would like the murderer out on parole, looking for another victim, at ease with approval of the weak and the willing , who would rather this , than the very necessary judgements and removal from the community that the present system does, .. not very well, but mostly adequately.

SO add me into the 'pitchforkers'.. proud to be there.

 

[fairydust]

Actually, I regret to inform, obviously, the Appeal statement wasn't quite clear, as you claim, otherwise why would it be disputed from one end of the country to the other? . No one disputes a 'clear' verdict. Everyone knows that. ..

It isn't that uncommon when an Appeals verdict is different from a jury verdict and is disputed when it doesn't bring up new evidence and merely relies on interpretation of the evidence given. Which, if I may remind you, was adjudged by a jury to be evidence of murderous intent. .

Only when new evidence is given is an appeal likely to succeed. As is perfectly obvious, and goes without stating, however, state it I will, this appeal under discussion has attempted to do exactly that. Conclude a new verdict without new evidence/ re-interpret the evidence a jury has already found to portray murderous intent.

Hence, it is most likely to be re appealed by the DPP and most likely be put aside, and our boy Gerard will be whistling Dixie until 2030 when he applies for bail and gets knocked back because he just cant bring himself to tell the truth about his wife's murder.

Because, as you know, parole relies very much on R.E.M.O.R.S.E. .. something that Gerard has yet to grasp.

It is clear - its a simple matter of reading the appeal.

The notion that he set out to pre-meditatively murder her could not be proven, but it was assumed during the trial. That amounted to prejudice - driven by pitchfork anger. We're seeing similar misguided anger resulting in wild irrational prejudice very strongly in another case at the moment.

The appeal judge rightly concluded this, with 2 other judges concurring. End of story (unless a counter appeal is lodged)

Manslaughter is not a walk in the park - it can still mean a 20 year sentence. However the crime of passion defence looms large under manslaughter as I'm sure a learned fellow like you knows .

 

[Walk A Mile]

It disgusts me that GBC benefits from hiding her body to putrify while her family, friends and community suffered through the agony of not knowing what had happened to her. The pain he inflicted on all those people, the wasted man-hours and resources that were sunk into trying to find her, and it all goes to his benefit: no cause of death could be determined so it has to be assumed that he caused her death accidentally.

He testified on his own behalf that he played no role in her death, which was determined by a jury to be a lie, but he benefits from those lies under oath too, because now it has to be assumed that this was an accidental killing. Why is this how our justice system works? He gave an untruthful account of the events of the night; everyone agrees that. If he didn't testify truthfully, why should he benefit from his lies to the court?

Manslaughter charges should be automatically upgraded to murder if the defendant is found guilty of interfering with a corpse where the body was concealed to pervert the course of justice. It is in the public interest to deter offenders from disappearing their victims.

 

[Estelle]

Gerard Baden-Clay among those who manipulate crime scenes to mislead investigations: forensic criminologist says

There were two deep scratches on his face that would contribute to Gerard Baden-Clay&#8217;s downfall. By attempting to pass them off as shaving injuries, Baden-Clay joined a small cohort of homicide offenders who manipulate crime scenes to mislead investigators.
She said only about 3-8% of homicide offenders manipulated evidence at a crime scene to mislead investigators and avoid arrest, and those who did had often killed an intimate partner or someone else who was known to them. Sometimes the staging is meticulously planned in advance but it can also be impromptu after an unintended killing &#8212; it may be &#8216;I&#8217;ve killed him/her, I can&#8217;t go to prison for the rest of my life. As proposed by the prosecution expert, the small cuts on Gerard Baden-Clay&#8217;s face suggested he had used his razor to cut over the top of existing scratches to try to make it look like a legitimate shaving injury. Baden-Clay&#8217;s efforts were more sophisticated and required quite a bit of effort &#8212; moving the body, disposing of it, cleaning up evidence and creating a facade of a grieving husband for police and the public. In the case of Baden-Clay, sometimes the offender&#8217;s injuries are not consistent with their own story.

http://www.news.com.au/national/que...r/news-story/4e3f28c5da6c39f9e1b56b2ac9344060

 

[fairydust]

Manslaughter charges should be automatically upgraded to murder if the defendant is found guilty of interfering with a corpse

Thats not how it works. Murder is intent before the act, NOT actions after the act. Different things.

 

[Trooper]

It is clear - its a simple matter of reading the appeal.



The appeal judge rightly concluded this, with 2 other judges concurring. End of story (unless a counter appeal is lodged)

.

edited by me for brevity and clarity..


it is clear that you have not availed yourself of the transcript of the original trial. If you had, you would see quite clearly where the matter will eventually wind up, that is, a counter appeal that will overturn this defence appeal, which is where a great deal of misguided belief is being invested. ... I sense your anger , re the wild screams of 'pitchforking' and 'anger' and all this stuff.. this is probably part of why peoples calm and considered disputation of the Appeals verdict has infuriated you. A pity because it is wasted energy.

SO I recommend you Email the QLD Courts, they will send a copy of the transcript, to your door, like they did for me, it only costs as much as a pair of Jimmy Choo's and makes excellent reading. Once you've read that, you will be up to speed, so much more than you are presently.

Cheers, Trooper.

 

[fairydust]

it is clear that you have not availed yourself of the transcript of the original trial. If you had, you would see quite clearly where the matter will eventually wind up, that is, a counter appeal that will overturn this defence appeal,

lol its ended up where it has, appealed and overturned. Thats all the clarity you need.

. I sense your anger , re the wild screams of 'pitchforking' and 'anger' and all this stuff.. this is probably....

Really? lol The only wild thing here might be your imagination. I dont have a dog in this fight. Whichever way it goes is fine by me.

peoples calm and considered disputation of the Appeals verdict has infuriated you.

Really? lol Thanks for your "insights", Troops, I'll leave it here, as I sense you're getting worked up over....? Something. Have a lovely day.

 

[Trooper]

lol its ended up where it has, appealed and overturned. Thats all the clarity you need.


Really? lol The only wild thing here might be your imagination. I dont have a dog in this fight. Whichever way it goes is fine by me.


Really? lol Thanks for your "insights", Troops, I'll leave it here, as I sense you're getting worked up over....? Something. Have a lovely day.

:therethere::therethere::cheer: try not to get too overwrought on your other case you have involved yourself in. It would be so misguided, and really, non productive.. .''have a super day!!.. "

 

[Couldbe]

edited by me for brevity and clarity..


it is clear that you have not availed yourself of the transcript of the original trial. If you had, you would see quite clearly where the matter will eventually wind up, that is, a counter appeal that will overturn this defence appeal, which is where a great deal of misguided belief is being invested. ... I sense your anger , re the wild screams of 'pitchforking' and 'anger' and all this stuff.. this is probably part of why peoples calm and considered disputation of the Appeals verdict has infuriated you. A pity because it is wasted energy.

SO I recommend you Email the QLD Courts, they will send a copy of the transcript, to your door, like they did for me, it only costs as much as a pair of Jimmy Choo's and makes excellent reading. Once you've read that, you will be up to speed, so much more than you are presently.

Cheers, Trooper.

Good advice to you FairyDust; do that, and then try the opposite approach to that which you are doing at the moment .... just to provide a balance to your current judgment, and then highlight the discrepancies .... a thorough approach.

 

[McCoy]

Thats not how it works. Murder is intent before the act, NOT actions after the act. Different things.

The intent before the act does not have to be weeks of meticulous planning with lists. Losing your temper and killing someone on the spot is murder as well. There is a point at which you realise I should stop here or they will die.

I disagree about the actions after. There is no proof Allison was not alive and critically injured when he dumped her body. As we have said he cannot legally diagnose death. If he didn't intend murder he should have rung an ambulance.

 

[Walk A Mile]

Thats not how it works. Murder is intent before the act, NOT actions after the act. Different things.

I say there has been no miscarriage of justice if a person who committed manslaughter is found guilty of murder because they concealed the body, destroyed evidence and gave false testimony under oath.

 

[Fuskier]

Actually, I regret to inform, obviously, the Appeal statement wasn't quite clear, as you claim, otherwise why would it be disputed from one end of the country to the other? . No one disputes a 'clear' verdict. Everyone knows that. ..

It isn't that uncommon when an Appeals verdict is different from a jury verdict and is disputed when it doesn't bring up new evidence and merely relies on interpretation of the evidence given. Which, if I may remind you, was adjudged by a jury to be evidence of murderous intent. .

Only when new evidence is given is an appeal likely to succeed. As is perfectly obvious, and goes without stating, however, state it I will, this appeal under discussion has attempted to do exactly that. Conclude a new verdict without new evidence/ re-interpret the evidence a jury has already found to portray murderous intent.

Hence, it is most likely to be re appealed by the DPP and most likely be put aside, and our boy Gerard will be whistling Dixie until 2030 when he applies for bail and gets knocked back because he just cant bring himself to tell the truth about his wife's murder.

Because, as you know, parole relies very much on R.E.M.O.R.S.E. .. something that Gerard has yet to grasp.

BIB Agreed. That is what appears to have happened here IMO i.e. retrospectively re-interpreted evidence presented at Trial which a Jury of reasonable men/women judged as murder.

... and that smell still lingers.

 

[Fuskier]

...you know... I don't mind at all being labelled as part of the pitchfork crowd.. I don't think any community can progress , or thrive, or live in the necessary degree of safety and harmony if the murderous and the dangerous among us are not kept in some sort of constraint, after due process.

It is airyfairy to hold the idea that tolerance of murder , especially the murder of women, by men, has some sort of status and therefore should be accepted. That truly has to be the way to extreme diminishment and dullness, of both the perpetrator and the encourager ,who would like the murderer out on parole, looking for another victim, at ease with approval of the weak and the willing , who would rather this , than the very necessary judgements and removal from the community that the present system does, .. not very well, but mostly adequately.

SO add me into the 'pitchforkers'.. proud to be there.

I don't believe your views are 'like' the so called 'pitchforkers' Trooper. You are an educated, intelligent, articulate citizen among a like-minded community of citizens who are appropriately concerned by the downgrade which seems to have advantaged the killer and makes a mockery of our Jury system IMO.

I have noticed some legal eagles attempts to thwart public outrage at the QCA decision using legal argument known only to those in the legal domain. They imply: "No point being outraged, this is the Law; it's a done deal!" "We know the Law and you don't".

Let's take their views into account, but let's not be thwarted. We say: "Yes, but sometimes the Law is an *advertiser censored*!".

We have a right to an opinion on this downgrade as citizens of this community when a Jury of reasonable men/women found the evidence at Trial indicated murder. To have the evidence 'cherry-picked' and re-interpreted retrospectively to the killers advantage makes a mockery of the judicious judgement of our Jury. It may yet be determined in the public interest that the appeal court decision be reviewed. My opinion only.