Gerard Baden Clay's murder appeal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bear13

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Not sure if I'm confused or not, but mention of the timeline regarding the dicussion between the Trial Judge/The Defence and when Gerard took the stand. I was in court for the whole time.

Timeline of events were:

Baden Clay Senior stating that Gerard was obligated to notify the Insurance Company.
Then Gerard took the stand (after Olivia, Dickies and Toni) with his ridiculous advertising campaign and denial. After Gerard finished his infomercial, and was no longer continuing, he turned up to the commencement of court the next day and tried to give the Trial Judge a letter. It was intercepted and shut down. Apparently Gerard was worried that because his advert was finished and he hadn't had any contact with his Defence team overnight he wouldn't be able to say anymore. That afternoon, the Defence approached Justice Byrne, he dismissed the jury and the Defence tried to change the charge to Unlawful Killing.

Hope that makes sense

Thank you BreakingNews.
From words that I recorded at the trial:

Baden Clay Senior said that Gerard was not in a good state / he was absolutely anxious.
When the body was found he told Gerard that he had an obligation to notify the Insurance Company.
Gerard asked his Father to fill in any claim form for him and he signed them.

For me, it is relevant and useful in this Appeal wrangle that this statement occurred before the discussion between the Trial Judge, the Defence and the Prosecution (with regard to changing to Unlawful Killing), and that this took place before Gerard took the stand.
 

Couldbe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
718
Reaction score
1,079
Not sure if I'm confused or not, but mention of the timeline regarding the dicussion between the Trial Judge/The Defence and when Gerard took the stand. I was in court for the whole time.

Timeline of events were:

Baden Clay Senior stating that Gerard was obligated to notify the Insurance Company.
Then Gerard took the stand (after Olivia, Dickies and Toni) with his ridiculous advertising campaign and denial. After Gerard finished his infomercial, and was no longer continuing, he turned up to the commencement of court the next day and tried to give the Trial Judge a letter. It was intercepted and shut down. Apparently Gerard was worried that because his advert was finished and he hadn't had any contact with his Defence team overnight he wouldn't be able to say anymore. That afternoon, the Defence approached Justice Byrne, he dismissed the jury and the Defence tried to change the charge to Unlawful Killing.

Hope that makes sense
Thank you Bear3 ..... I do vaguely remember the letter incident now. Your timeline could very well be spot on; so I wonder if he could have continued on the stand and at that point changed his plea to guilty of Manslaughter (thereby reducing his sentence!).
 

Bear13

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I have a pretty good memory and am 99.5 % sure that was the timeline. The Defence's approach to Justice Byrne was definitely after Gerard had been on the stand. It was actually about half an hour after Hot Toddy had presented new evidence of an online blog that had been found that Gerard had been posting on, in and around 2011. It was about life as a Real Estate Agent, juggling a family and how hard it was. (Yawn). That was dismissed.


IMO, I certainly don't think Gerard was wanting to tell them he wanted to change his plea. In memory I had heard mumblings that he felt that he hadn't articulated properly something in his informercial and wanted to clarify in finer detail.
Thank you Bear3 ..... I do vaguely remember the letter incident now. Your timeline could very well be spot on; so I wonder if he could have continued on the stand and at that point changed his plea to guilty of Manslaughter (thereby reducing his sentence!).
 

Couldbe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
718
Reaction score
1,079
I have a pretty good memory and am 99.5 % sure that was the timeline. The Defence's approach to Justice Byrne was definitely after Gerard had been on the stand. It was actually about half an hour after Hot Toddy had presented new evidence on an online blog that had been found that Gerard had been posting on, in and around 2011. It was about life as a Real Estate Agent and how hard it was. (Yawn). That was dismissed.


IMO, I certainly don't think Gerard was wanting to tell them he wanted to change his plea. In memory I had heard mumblings that he felt that he hadn't articulated properly something in his informercial and wanted to clarify in finer detail.
I was thinking that it might be relevant that he was denied that opportunity and that he may very well have taken that opportunity but by Judge Byrne rejecting Unlawful killing he was still defending the charge of Murder.
 

Bear13

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I was thinking that it might be relevant that he was denied that opportunity and that he may very well taken that opportunity but by Judge Byrne rejecting Unlawful killing he was still defending the charge of Murder.
Interesting take Couldbe. I hadn't really looked at it like that. I'm not sure if you were at court, but IMO Gerard really showed his true colours of the typical narcissist and IMO would never back down on his original story. I also don't think he ever will. I truly hope the Parole Board take into account his continual behaviour of NO REMORSE.
 

Bear13

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I was thinking that it might be relevant that he was denied that opportunity and that he may very well have taken that opportunity but by Judge Byrne rejecting Unlawful killing he was still defending the charge of Murder.

Sorry Couldbe, do you mean the Appeal Judges took that into consideration (that Gerard didn't get the opportunity) in their decision to downgrade from murder to manslaughter?
 

Couldbe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
718
Reaction score
1,079
Interesting take Couldbe. I hadn't really looked at it like that. I'm not sure if you were at court, but IMO Gerard really showed his true colours of the typical narcissist and IMO would never back down on his original story. I also don't think he ever will. I truly hope the Parole Board take into account his continual behaviour of NO REMORSE.
I just thought his 'being denied the opportunity to change his plea' might be a clever ploy, set up by the Defence Barrister ....... and that seems to be the hypothetical theory used in the Appeal.

.... and consequently, if it had occurred after Gerard's performance was totally finished on the stand, then he would not have had that opportunity available to him when he took the stand, and too late to take back all that he had said.
 

Couldbe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
718
Reaction score
1,079
Sorry Couldbe, do you mean the Appeal Judges took that into consideration (that Gerard didn't get the opportunity) in their decision to downgrade from murder to manslaughter?
Yes ...... convoluted thinking on my part I know
 

Bear13

New Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I just thought his 'being denied the opportunity to change his plea' might be a clever ploy, set up by the Defence Barrister ....... and that seems to be the hypothetical theory used in the Appeal.

.... and consequently, if it had occurred after Gerard's performance was totally finished on the stand, then he would not have had that opportunity available to him when he took the stand, and too late to take back all that he had said.

Clever, but sickening!
The thought makes my blood boil.

Interesting connecting the dots. Thanks Couldbe
 

Fuskier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
4,355
Reaction score
252
FYI
http://www.theage.com.au/queensland...ver-appeal-to-conviction-20151211-gllf86.html

Baden-Clay manslaughter: Govt calls for patience over appeal to conviction
December 11, 2015 by Amy Remeikis

Acting Attorney-General Cameron Dick said he has asked the state's prosecutors to "not do a rushed job, but the right job", as it considers appealing ...

"... The DPP needs to take time to ensure that any special leave application to the High Court is as strong as possible. This is a complex case involving complicated legal issues as well as factual issues"...
 

catswhiskers

Active Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
16
I have a pretty good memory and am 99.5 % sure that was the timeline. The Defence's approach to Justice Byrne was definitely after Gerard had been on the stand. It was actually about half an hour after Hot Toddy had presented new evidence of an online blog that had been found that Gerard had been posting on, in and around 2011. It was about life as a Real Estate Agent, juggling a family and how hard it was. (Yawn). That was dismissed.


IMO, I certainly don't think Gerard was wanting to tell them he wanted to change his plea. In memory I had heard mumblings that he felt that he hadn't articulated properly something in his informercial and wanted to clarify in finer detail.

Speaking of Hot Toddy :) - has there been any comment from him about the recent developments?

I have only started lurking here since the announcement about the appeal being successful - I didn't even bother following and subscribing to the appeal thread as I honestly never thought anything would come of it. Unbelieveable :(
 

Amee

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
6,197
Reaction score
4
[h=1]Gerard Baden-Clay lied to police more than 130 times in attempt to conceal his role in wife’s death[/h]December 15, 2015 12:30am

His lack of remorse and attempts to lie his way out of trouble – 134 lies in total – was yesterday condemned by police involved in the case, and will be a key factor when he faces sentencing as early as next month.


“Eleven days it took for us to find Allison. The anguish he put that family through, particularly the kids,” one officer said.


“And it’s all about Gerard, all very self-serving. He had no thoughts about her, the kids, about anyone else.”

Another officer said: “It’s right what they say – you wouldn’t trust him to walk your dog.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...h/news-story/c1bf508333df87e9c8296e08a1a9848a

:liar:
 

Fuskier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
4,355
Reaction score
252
FYI
http://www.theage.com.au/queensland...ont-attend-allison-rally-20151214-glmypl.html

Baden-Clay appeal: Palaszczuk won't attend Allison rally
December 14, 2015 by Amy Remeikis

"... Public Prosecution staff will work through the Christmas break to prepare for the appeal application, which, if successful, could change how circumstantial evidence is dealt with by the courts"...

This is a case that involves complex matters of law and matters of fact...

There is a two-stage process if any appeal is to proceed -
1) an application for special leave to appeal to persuade the High Court to hear an appeal;
2) a substantive appeal itself.

Acting Attorney-General Cameron Dick said he had offered the DPP additional resources to prepare for the state's date with the High Court.
"As I said on Friday, I understand the deep community concern and interest in this case, but our responsibility... to all parties involved, to Queenslanders, is to take the time to get the decision right," he said.

This case involves circumstantial evidence, with implications for this case, but also implications for other cases involving circumstantial evidence...
 

Fuskier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
4,355
Reaction score
252
FYI
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/th...pper-hand-in-the-legal-system-20151214-gln2k2

The Baden-Clay decision gives domestic violence killers the upper hand in the legal system
December 14, 2015 - 8:05PM
by Alister Henskens

The most serious case possible of domestic violence involves a woman or man being murdered by their partner.

In the Baden-Clay case, the jury's verdict was that the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that a husband murdered his wife. But the decision of the jury representing the community was disappointingly overturned on appeal.

"... it creates a precedent meaning the Courts in all States and Territories of Australia are likely to follow Baden-Clay, unless the High Court overturns the decision or Parliament enacts remedial legislation".

Some articulation of deeper implications now appearing in the media which give 'voice' to and validates concerns underpinning the public outcry in this case. Good to see. My opinion only.
 

ThaiBali

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2014
Messages
278
Reaction score
571
This is tragic. The first thought I had was, oh no, all that police work for this to happen it would have been tortuous dealing the BC family.
I pray if he is released it will be when his daughters are able to make their own decisions-after all he did tell many people that he 'belted' his daughters, shouldn't that be assault. I so feel bad for the Dickie family, Police, Jury, Judge...everyone involved.

If released it will be a Casey Anthony replay, she is still in hiding. Smug loser that he is.
 

RR0004

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
20,001
Reaction score
15
He won't be released on appeal, will he?

ETA: just read a little bit in the news...manslaughter? They downgraded the murder verdict to manslaughter? How could they possibly feel that it's just? Can anyone give me the short version of Australian law as to why he his crime qualfies for manslaughter and not murder? TIA
 

Fuskier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
4,355
Reaction score
252
FYI
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/th...pper-hand-in-the-legal-system-20151214-gln2k2

Alister Henskens, SC, barrister and State Member for Ku-ring-gai, NSW.

At the trial before a jury, the prosecution contended that the husband killed his wife and dumped her body beneath a bridge. The husband pleaded not guilty. When the husband gave evidence at the trial, he denied fighting with or killing his wife and testified that he had wanted to spend the rest of his life with her. He did not give any excuse for why he might have accidentally killed her.

The Appeal Court found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the husband killed his wife, contrary to his denial. The jury clearly rejected the evidence of the husband and his false denials. But the Court of Appeal found that there was insufficient evidence to find that the husband intended to kill his wife.

"In a baffling piece of legal reasoning it found that the evidence was consistent with the fact that the husband may have accidentally killed his wife even though he had denied in his evidence doing so".

Pleased to see this articulated in msm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top