Discussion in 'Allison Baden-Clay of Australia' started by marlywings, Jun 3, 2014.
Welcome, Angel! Great that you decided to join the conversation.
Gerard says he was asleep.. Gerard says, there was no argument.. Gerard says he knows nothing of panic and hiding the body and making up a story. Gerard says he didn't do it, she did it to herself. That's Gerards case. That's the defence he has paid for, and that is the defence his legal team argued. A jury cannot go beyond what the defendant has stated.
Gerard no more wants a manslaughter verdict than I do. There is one reason and one only why Gerard hasn't led a case for the argument, the panic, the restraint, all that stuff, is because a manslaughter conviction doesn't get him the money. He murdered for the money.
Perhaps this will be discussed at sentencing Fuskier . I think of all these emotions she must have felt, often
This scenario also manages to turn the victim into the attacker.
And don't tell me you watch The Killing? Po-po, ha!
It might be intent. But I never said anything about covering her mouth and nose until she dies. Consider a scenario where he restrains ABC but inadvertently smothers her.
It might be intent. But I never said anything about her clawing at him and clearly suffocating. Consider a scenario where he restrains ABC but inadvertently smothers her.
Restraining someone unlawfully is not an element of murder anyway.
Bodily injury endangering life or causing permanent injury to health (or likely to do same).
How so? GBC could have attached ABC in this scenario.
Disagree in part. Yes he wants to be acquitted, but I'm sure he'd take a consolation prize of a manslaughter conviction.
The David Bain retrial.
Just one small thing - Gerred isn't paying his defence team. We, the taxpayers are paying for it as he is the recipient of legal aid, which I guess he's entitled to.
Thanks kiwi (and others), I was aware of the David Bain trials but had no idea the jury members were behaving that way.
it isn't the business of the jury to consider 'scenario's' unless they have been placed in evidence.. other wise this jury, or any jury would have the leeway to meander off into scenario's of all colours and hues.. it could have been terrorists, patrolling the outskirts of Brookfield, Allison being the first strike against the New World Order stuff, it could have been a bushy haired stranger, it could have been a forgotten cranky customer from the real estate business , out for revenge.. it could have been the Queensland Country Women's Association hit squad seething with rage over Allisons recipe for lamingtons.. ...
If Gerard wanted the 'consolation prize' of a lesser charge, he had that opportunity over the past two years, and could have led it at his committal hearing. But he didn't . He pleaded Not Guilty then , and Not Guilty at this Supreme Court trial. Not Guilty to Murder.
A reminder to all members.
Unless you're a Verified Professional with us, if you state something as fact, especially legal type information, then you need to supply a relevant link to support that info.
No link = no post
My hypothetical scenario was simply to demonstrate circumstances in which a jury might return a verdict of manslaughter where they were not satisified that the element of intent had been made out.
I'd still wager that he'd take a conviction for manslaughter over a conviction for murder in a heartbeart, notwithstanding that he's put all his eggs in the acquittal basket.
You are correct Freya - that IS intent.
not intent is running over someone who jumps out in front of your car and you cannot stop in time for example. Smothering someone while they are clawing at your face and you keep going IS intent. YOU are correct.
I really can't imagine how. Why would she need to be restrained? Because she's attacking him? What kind of restraint accidentally smothers someone? I'd say restraining her in the first place is unlawful so not sure how that would effect it.
No you didn't say that but the evidence on Gerards face says that she clawed him.
Even if they die while you're doing it?
Thanks. So this is the definition of GBH?
You said scratching and slapping. Gerard is the one with the scratches and Allison is the one being restrained in this scenario, so I don't think you meant that it was Gerard doing the attacking.
Is GBH GBC's cousin?
Attempt at humour.
That seems to make sense to me.... From how the judge described it anyway
obviously, Gerard hasn't considered it . ..he can, any accused can , change his mind , could have changed his plea .. at his bail hearing , at his committal hearing and even up to his Trial date.. He didn't. That's why it's where it is this very hour. Jury out deliberating on whether Gerard Baden-Clay is guilty as charged by the State of Qld in the matter of the murder of his wife, Allison Baden-Clay... way past the hypothetical stage.
I've been wondering about this too - how can a jury find him guilty of manslaughter when he has so vehemently denied playing any role in Allison's death. He has gone to great lengths to explain away her disappearance and death and the evidence against him, so why would a jury even consider it manslaughter? Maybe others have some cases they can recall when this has happened without the defendant actually admitting to playing some part in someone's death?