Gerard Baden Clay's murder appeal

[JLZ]

Question about the lawyers in the case. Sorry if this has been discussed and I've missed it. At the GBC trial, his defence counsel was Michael Byrne QC "formerly the deputy director of Public Prosecutions". http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/badenclay-trial-the-players-20140609-zs1zz.html In the GBC appeal, counsel for the Crown is Michael Byrne QC Acting Director of Public Prosecutions. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ion-appeal-live-coverage-20150806-gitmnr.html Is this the same lawyer acting for each side in turn?

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...clay-and-the-high-bar-for-prosecution/7013034

Gerard Baden-Clay and the high bar for prosecution
OPINION By Arlie Loughnan
Updated 2 hours ago

How is GBC able to argue that he might have killed his wife accidentally on Appeal, yet under Oath at trial, he denied having anything to do with her death?

"... Although the finding that Baden-Clay was responsible for his wife's death has not been questioned, his successful appeal has raised questions about our criminal justice system. It seems hard to understand how Baden-Clay is able to argue that he might have killed his wife accidentally, when at trial, he denied having anything to do with her death, and knowing nothing about how her body ended up at the creek"...

 

[they'll get you]

See video.

I'm going to cling with hope to this article and pray this egg-head knows what she's talking about.


Gerard Baden-Clay 'still facing decade behind bars' despite being acquitted of murdering wife

Gerard Baden-Clay has not "gotten away with it" despite being acquitted of murdering his wife and can still expect to spend at least 10 years in jail, legal experts say.

University of Queensland criminal law expert Professor Heather Douglas said a life sentence was still possible given Baden-Clay's "lack of remorse" about the killing.

"People think he has gotten away with it but the fact is, he hasn't," Professor Douglas told ninemsn.
"I expect there will still be a strong sentence, given he tried to cover up the killing, insinuated she had mental illness, and pretended to look for her.

"Judges have had a strong view that strong sentences are appropriate to denounce these kinds of cases."

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...ll-facing-decade-behind-bars-for-killing-wife

 

[Wolfinator]

See video.

I'm going to cling with hope to this article and pray this egg-head knows what she's talking about.


Gerard Baden-Clay 'still facing decade behind bars' despite being acquitted of murdering wife

Gerard Baden-Clay has not "gotten away with it" despite being acquitted of murdering his wife and can still expect to spend at least 10 years in jail, legal experts say.

University of Queensland criminal law expert Professor Heather Douglas said a life sentence was still possible given Baden-Clay's "lack of remorse" about the killing.

"People think he has gotten away with it but the fact is, he hasn't," Professor Douglas told ninemsn.
"I expect there will still be a strong sentence, given he tried to cover up the killing, insinuated she had mental illness, and pretended to look for her.

"Judges have had a strong view that strong sentences are appropriate to denounce these kinds of cases."

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...ll-facing-decade-behind-bars-for-killing-wife

I like the comment in the video "The prosecution did not have to disprove a theory that by Baden Clay's own admission did not happen"



IMO

 

[Couldbe]

Gerard Baden-Clay and the High Bar for Prosecution

There is a well-written explanation of yesterday's ruling here. Well worth a read. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...clay-and-the-high-bar-for-prosecution/7013034

Extract:- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...clay-and-the-high-bar-for-prosecution/7013034
...."Allowing Baden-Clay's appeal, the Queensland Court of Appeal concluded that the prosecution case had not ruled out the possibility that Gerard Baden-Clay killed his wife without intending serious harm, and that he disposed of her body at Kholo Creek (Omits the fact that decision to dispose of her body, and actually disposing it, took only a short period of time … displaying no remorse), and lied about the causes of the marks on his face to cover up his actions. This meant that the jury's conclusion that the killing was murder could not be sustained.
(About half way through the Trial, I heard a discussion which took place between the Judge, the Defence and the Prosecution which I interpreted to mean that the Defence was attempting to have the charge changed to Unlawful Killing; it was dismissed by the Judge. The discussion was arranged to exclude the Jury and the Defendant).
One would think the Defence would be representing the Defendant in this regard.
………… I can remember thinking that the proposal seemed to be bringing with it an admission of killing!..this view was drawn by the Defence fearing there was enough evidence for Gerard to be found Guilty of killing, so try for the lesser ...being Manslaughter.
Although the finding that Baden-Clay was responsible for his wife's death has not been questioned, his successful appeal has raised questions about our criminal justice system. It seems hard to understand how Baden-Clay is able to argue that he might have killed his wife accidently, when, at trial, he denied having anything to do with her death, and knowing nothing about how her body ended up at the creek.
It's important to recall that, under our laws, the accused does not have to prove his innocence - it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt. The presumption of innocence is a cardinal feature of our criminal justice system. It means that the accused person can test the case against him, and that his 'defence' can be that the prosecution have not made out the charge against him. This sets a high bar for the prosecution, but it is a protection against wrongful convictions."

 

[they'll get you]

Gerard Baden-Clay has not admitted anything!
So who put up the alternative defense?

So how is it that his lawyers can put forward a change of defense on Appeal?
What has our Justice system come to if a convicted murderer can change his defense on Appeal without a re-trial of the new defense?
What is Justice if our Appeal Court Judges can change a murder conviction by Jury on the basis of 'hypotheticals'?

We do need to question these proceedings. This is our Justice system.
This smells worse each day. IMHO.

I'm soo with you on this Fusky.

I'm getting angrier by the hour.

IF THERE IS A MARCH AGAINST THIS.....I'M THERE NOT ONLY BECAUSE ITS GBC BUT FOR EVERY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM IN THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE.

From Poss's link about Rosie Battie staring she was gutted by this outcome.

Can you help with this Rosie please??

 

[JCB]

JCB, thank you for the explanation (#384).

Is it common for appellate courts to rule that the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence, while maintaining that the judge did not err?

If a verdict of murder was necessarily unreasonable, why didn't the trial judge remove it from the jury? Or why is the Court of Appeal not saying--as far as I can make out--that the judge erred in leaving it to the jury?

It's basically because the refusal of the no case submission did not form part of the appeal and thus it was not specifically addressed. If it formed part of the appeal then it's possible/likely that the refusal would have been deemed to be an error of law.

 

[they'll get you]

I don't get what you mean. Is that (bolded) what Ray Hadley's callers were saying?

He didn't say jack squat and therefore didn't lie.

I heard Ray Hadley of 2GB say this.

So, in essence, I guess the loop hole is that GBC didn't lie in court because he said jack squat about where Allison was or what happened to her.

 

[Wolfinator]

He didn't say jack squat and therefore didn't lie.

I heard Ray Hadley of 2GB say this.

So, in essence, I guess the loop hole is that GBC didn't lie in court because he said jack squat about where Allison was or what happened to her.

Ray Hadley is a twit and clearly has no idea of GBC testimony.


IMO

 

[BrissyLass]

Question about the lawyers in the case. Sorry if this has been discussed and I've missed it. At the GBC trial, his defence counsel was Michael Byrne QC "formerly the deputy director of Public Prosecutions". http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/badenclay-trial-the-players-20140609-zs1zz.html In the GBC appeal, counsel for the Crown is Michael Byrne QC Acting Director of Public Prosecutions. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...ion-appeal-live-coverage-20150806-gitmnr.html Is this the same lawyer acting for each side in turn?

Same name but different barrister I'm sure, there's also a judge by the same name in Brisbane ... highly confusing that can be

 

[JLZ]

Same name but different barrister I'm sure, there's also a judge by the same name in Brisbane ... highly confusing that can be

Thank you. I find there are two Queensland barristers called Michael Byrne, but it's strange that in this case both lawyers are said to have been Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions at some stage. I suspect the Brisbane Times got their facts jumbled, and printed the history of the wrong man. Perhaps the wrong photograph too. But I'm not quite sure.

 

[possumheart]

It all seems so farcical.

 

[JLZ]

It's basically because the refusal of the no case submission did not form part of the appeal and thus it was not specifically addressed. If it formed part of the appeal then it's possible/likely that the refusal would have been deemed to be an error of law.

Got it, I think. So it's not that they routinely put juries through all the trauma, all the while planning that if the verdict isn't what the judges reckon, they'll just change it. The error--if the Court of Appeal's right and there was an error--was the judge's, in not finding no case to answer on the murder charge and leaving manslaughter only before the jury.

 

[possumheart]

Got it, I think. So it's not that they routinely put juries through all the trauma, all the while planning that if the verdict isn't what the judges reckon, they'll just change it. The error--if the Court of Appeal's right and there was an error--was the judge's, in not finding no case to answer on the murder charge and leaving manslaughter only before the jury.

With all due respect JLZ, I fail to see an error. I have tangled with the guy presently representing GBC and am happy to continue the conversation off forum. Or maybe I should just contact the Woman's Weekly and 60 minutes direct. F a r k.

 

[Trooper]

I haven't got enough guts to put my TV on, just in case the lip-quivering lip-licking Toni is being asked her 'opinion'.. Truly, I couldn't bear it.

ssssssay it isn't so , folks!!!

 

[BrissyLass]

Thank you. I find there are two Queensland barristers called Michael Byrne, but it's strange that in this case both lawyers are said to have been Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions at some stage. I suspect the Brisbane Times got their facts jumbled, and printed the history of the wrong man. Perhaps the wrong photograph too. But I'm not quite sure.

Your welcome JLZ, from memory I think one was an Acting Deputy Director for a time ...

 

[possumheart]

I haven't got enough guts to put my TV on, just in case the lip-quivering lip-licking Toni is being asked her 'opinion'.. Truly, I couldn't bear it.

ssssssay it isn't so , folks!!!

Über groomed sitting by lamplight, then long shots walking up the beach picking up shells. Fades out with Toni in a white shirt and denim clamdiggers, wind machine on tousled hair sitting on a wharf with her legs dangling and manicured toes wiggling, staring out to sea.

 

[Couldbe]

When the Jury witnessed Gerard, when he took the Stand to give his very own explanation of events, in his very own words, it is my opinion that it was his performance that really ‘hung him’ ……. His demonstration with a marker pen how he cut himself shaving; his explanations of his embarrassing sexual exploits; his tears on cue; his love for Allison (despite his emails to Toni regarding being free to be with her).

This ‘aspect of convincing evidence’ (much to be interpreted as lies) wouldn’t be recorded in words and therefore couldn’t be measured and added to reasons of ‘intent’ - which was…… during a possible argument, the final result eventuated by Gerard choosing not to save Allison’s life (by the hiding of Allison’s body and her death)….. there was no evidence to prove that she was dead before being placed at the bridge….even if he thought she was.

….. that evidence actually contributed to the Murder result ……. Without it, we may not even have the Manslaughter result that we currently have.

 

[possumheart]

duty of care

when the jury witnessed gerard, when he took the stand to give his very own explanation of events, in his very own words, it is my opinion that it was his performance that really ‘hung him’ ……. His demonstration with a marker pen how he cut himself shaving; his explanations of his embarrassing sexual exploits; his tears on cue; his love for allison (despite his emails to toni regarding being free to be with her).

This ‘aspect of convincing evidence’ (much to be interpreted as lies) wouldn’t be recorded in words and therefore couldn’t be measured and added to reasons of ‘intent’ - which was…… during a possible argument, the final result eventuated by gerard choosing not to save allison’s life (by the hiding of allison’s body and her death)….. there was no evidence to prove that she was dead before being placed at the bridge….even if he thought she was.

….. That evidence actually contributed to the murder result ……. Without it, we may not even have the manslaughter result that we currently have.

 

[they'll get you]

Ray Hadley is a twit and clearly has no idea of GBC testimony.


IMO

But I've heard this said by many others too.

Image the jury sitting day in day out, hearing Gerbald lying through his teeth, the family slandering Allison, seeing tears from the Dickies, seeing horrific photos and visiting the bridge and many other things.... Only to have everything tossed in the bin??

It was the jury who sat through ALL the evidence NOT the three amigos.