The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 10th July - Trial Day 18

[Trooper]

I'm relaxed about the juror and the download thingy... obviously, the jury system works. . a bright spark on it saw a dumbcluck whip out some silly stuff , reported it to the bailiff, who told the judge and zippo, the judge hauls them back for a bit of debunking.

nice to know that there is a beady eyed juror, and a dumbcluck juror who has been , within 4 minutes, raised up to speed by the judge. They would hardly have had time to make a cup of tea.. .. nice going.

all working fine. .

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

I'd advise all parents in the early stages of an unfolding family drama to keep their young children out of it for as long as possible. This would include sending them to school where they can just be kids and keep busy surrounded by friends - at least on that first day. Of course GBC made sure his girls were already worried because he had made them part of his cover story - but any normal parent would hopefully keep their worst fears to themselves for those first couple of hours, and not involve their young children until absolutely necessary. Depending on the situation, they could remain unaware of the problems altogether (i.e. if it is all sorted or resolved that day) and not experienced any stress at all. Or in a tragic situation like this one, they could at least have had one less day of anxiety and pain.

I think we live in a world where adults over-share with their children constantly. I've worked with kids who have been exposed to information and events that are just so far beyond their young minds' ability to process and deal with - it's very sad, and totally unnecessary.

Thanks for your post, I agree. that was exactly what I was trying to say, don't involve the kids in the worry and try to go on as normal as possible until you know more or its necessary to tell them. Unfortunately as you said, GBC did involve them from the early stages and did have them concerned- Again, he was thinking of number one only and not the impact this would have on his kids. Just trying to weazel his way out of the situation.

 

[Her Honour]

There is still:

the other woman
the financial problems
the life insurance enquiries
the life insurance claim
the failure to make any calls, go and search for her etc. on the evening of the 19th following the "argument"
the lack of sexual assault to Allison
the lack of physical injury to Allison
the failure of the "argument" to wake the children
the unlikelihood of Allison leaving the house following an argument with GBC.

That one's wife would flee the house, leaving her three school-aged children, following a violent argument about an affair and then happen to be robbed and murdered is simply too implausible for a jury to accept.

Thanks MRSA, I've enjoyed reading your take on things.

I was just musing along the lines of were it proven he did it = convicted, no insurance, no freedom; potentially somebody else = acquitted, insurance, freedom (his ideal); potentially suicide = acquitted, no insurance, freedom (the only available, semi-credible defence in this trial). Your point is why his ideal couldn't be run as a 'positive' defence on the current evidence, but might have introduced sufficient doubt had he undertaken 1-9. I hope I'm making some kind of sense? Perhaps not in my sleep deprived state...apologies!

All I'm really saying is that someone more clever, who'd done everything of which he is accused, might have escaped conviction with a bit more cunning.

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Don't you want to add something to that post ....like.... Someone told me or...... On the Internet....... Or in a book I once read????

:floorlaugh: Just don't add 'from personal experience'

 

[squizzey1]

Definately!!!

oh good glad someone has the same thoughts thanks:blowkiss:

 

[Total]

Alioop what kind of document would be handed to family members in court?

Maybe something in relation to approaching a jury member? A summons from the Sheriff in relation to that? Was she wearing purple yesterday ?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Questions have been asked about the co incidence of the texts sent from GBC phone and Allison's phone connecting to the Internet at 6.31 am. A friend has explained to me that the way Apple’s iMessaging works is that IF both ends of the conversation have an iDevice (and in this case, they did - they were both iPhones) then that is detected as soon as the text message is sent, and the message goes via the Internet, and NOT via the telco 3G connection. Those iMessages are free, and show on the iPhone or iPad as a BLUE message from your end, as opposed to sending a text to somebody who does NOT have an iDevice (say an Android Samsung instead) in which case your messages show up in GREEN.

So when GBC sent his first text message at 06:31, it would have woken up Allison’s phone - wherever it was - and logged it onto the Internet to receive the message. It would immediately be detected and identified as an iPhone. Once logged on, it would not have logged off again unless somebody actively did that by turning the phone off. And if the phone was in the one place, it would simply have remained logged on (including automatically checking for emails, texts, etc - pinging the tower’s Internet connection) until the battery ran out.

The big question is WHERE was Allison’s phone when it got woken up by GBC’s text message? It could have been in his pocket, or in the Captiva beside him with him chucking it out of the window or taking it out of the car somewhere that remained within reach of the FTP tower. And it should be pointed out that the FTP tower is right next to the overpass over the Centenary Highway, and reaches at least as far as the Kenmore Plaza, and probably further.

If I'm understanding right, if Allison's iphone received both messages but then could not be triangulated with GBC's phone later when police were at his home, doesn't that indicate the phone was destroyed or taken well out of the area after GBC sent the message unless of course the phone battery died minutes later?

 

[Timmy]

:floorlaugh: Just don't add 'from personal experience'

My thoughts exactly!! :scared:

 

[Freya1977]

This is very sus.
He may have turned on the phone. Sent a text, turned the sound off and thrown it in a ditch.

It could also be that when the first message was sent, the phone connected to the tower to retrieve the message.
Only the phone company would know what the message means.

BBM...

I thought that, but hers connects before he sends the text....and I don't think SMS uses any data, so not sure that it would trigger it to connect to the tower. I know I can send and receive SMS with my data completely turned off. Would be interesting to know exactly what makes a phone start a data session and stop the data session. I've seen this on my bills where it stays connected for 20 something hours then disconnects and reconnects soon after. Who knows...it's all very confusing!

 

[Fuskier]

Just a comment. Bit disappointed the PT didn't point out (unless I missed it) the extreme fear that Allison must have experienced; it must have been terrifying knowing what was happening, then recognizing that this attacker was her husband, the man she loved, trying to kill her; then within seconds, she desperately tried to fight for her life against her own husband, the alleged attacker. The amount of terror, the visions of the 3 little girls, the fact that nobody would know, etc. :rose:

 

[Her Honour]

And please don't tell me there's been Joogling?! An unnecessary, straight up, crazy breach of the perfectly clear directions! Sheesh...

 

[AAAA]

Yeah, I think the general feeling in Brisbane is that most of the jurors must think he's guilty (if not all) but a few are worried about the term "reasonable doubt". Anticipating a hung jury, I think the Judge (and prosecution probably at this point) are happy enough to have him charged for manslaughter because of the public outrage if he walks free. (Same thing happened in the death of Tina Watson, tried here in QLD). I think everyone's feeling pretty solid about a manslaughter charge, because those who feel iffy about a guilty verdict will fall easily into the lesser manslaughter category. I don't think anyone seriously expects any juror to believe GBC is completely innocent.

I think they're anticipating a manslaughter charge and some public uproar about it needing to be a guilty verdict afterwards. I believe he's guilty and if I was on the jury would have voted that way over manslaughter, but I think a lot of people feel (understandably) uncomfortable about the term "reasonable" when assessing the case. It's such a subjective, tricky word. I also think our government and police realize some stranger will probably attempt to kill him if he's set free. So they're offering a "lock him up for a while?" verdict rather than "lock him up for 20 years or whatever" option.

In my opinion only, all of this, including the next bit: Yes, I believe everyone in that courtroom knows GBC lied in his testimony and that he probably wasn't the one who moved the body that night. A heat-of-the-moment murder followed by a cover-up with a second person (GBC's father) seems to be most of the public's opinion here, with the added idea that GBC probably had the idea in his head for a while and on that night it erupted. (For all the reasons everyone knows so well. Wouldn't surprise me if Allison found out about everything and told him she was leaving him, taking the kids, etc.)

Sorry, but I don't think some vigilante is going to knock him off if he gets out. We are talking about normal people here, not gangsters and bikies. That would only make some random citizen as bad as he is. If he got off I imagine the only retribution from the public would be stares, comments, verbal abuse, maybe a couple of eggings... For the rest off his time in Brisbane. I imagine he'd move away quick smart, hopefully taking the whole lot of them with him. Rant over, not meaning to offend.

 

[squizzey1]

Sorry, but I don't think some vigilante is going to knock him off if he gets out. We are talking about normal people here, not gangsters and bikies. That would only make some random citizen as bad as he is. If he got off I imagine the only retribution from the public would be stares, comments, verbal abuse, maybe a couple off eggings... For the rest off his time in Brisbane. I imagine he'd move away quick smart, hopefully taking the whole lot of them with him. Rant over, not meaning to offend.

there are people out there that would do it for fun just to see him squirm and wriggle and cry

 

[BatWoman]

Are we there yet?

 

[Ms Smith]

Justice John Byrne has told the jury that Gerard Baden-Clay is presumed innocent unless the prosecution has proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (GB-C says he is not guilty.) "Your role is to determine, on the evidence, whether he is guilty or not guilty." Also, "You must approach your duty dispassionately, deciding the facts upon the evidence." Justice Byrne warned the jury about assertions the defence and prosecution had made throughout the trial. Justice Byrne also said opening and closing addresses were not evidence. Prosecutor Todd Fuller's evidence had to be made on circumstantial evidence, so any notion that the prosecution should not win their case based on this, is totally unbelievable and idiotic. If there are so many people writing and reading on this blog, can use our own common sense, (and the evidence of witnesses and experts), and decide for ourselves the who, why, when, what, and where of this case, then there is no reason to doubt GB-C's guilt. And regardless of his guilt or not, to GB-C, “No guilt is forgotten so long as the conscience still knows of it.” and “When you are guilty, it is not your sins you hate but yourself.” May justice prevail for this unspoken victim. This is my first and last comment on this case.

 

[Smegal]

Thanks for your post, I agree. that was exactly what I was trying to say, don't involve the kids in the worry and try to go on as normal as possible until you know more or its necessary to tell them. Unfortunately as you said, GBC did involve them from the early stages and did have them concerned- Again, he was thinking of number one only and not the impact this would have on his kids. Just trying to weazel his way out of the situation.

Thanks for your post too, that is what I was trying to say with my original post: don't involve children until necessary. Definitely wasn't saying GBC was right to send them to school and I feel that way because he did involve them.

 

[Aliwonders]

Males are generally better judges of other males. IMO. From my personal understanding.
I don't know the reason, but it may be to do with not being seduced so easily by so called charms.
I was secretly pleased to see more males than females here.
Heh heh *sly laugh*

Especially the "charms" of TFQC

 

[UnfoldingTruth]

Thanks for your post too, that is what I was trying to say with my original post: don't involve children until necessary. Definitely wasn't saying GBC was right to send them to school and I feel that way because he did involve them.

Yep. totally understand where you were coming from

 

[Helen-Lou]

Or like a deliberate attempt for a mistrial..

Why couldn't they dismiss this juror and put one of the reserve jurors on instead? Wouldn't this mean no risk then for retrial? (mind you I have no idea how the court system works!).

 

[Cattail]

If I'm understanding right, if Allison's iphone received both messages but then could not be triangulated with GBC's phone later when police were at his home, doesn't that indicate the phone was destroyed or taken well out of the area after GBC sent the message unless of course the phone battery died minutes later?

Maybe the app was deleted from her phone. It has to be on both to work.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk