The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 25th June - Trial Day 10, Week 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

Total

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
Yes I believe this, but we don't seem to have any evidence that places him there...?

Blood in the car?
Phone off the Charger until 1.28
Dogs at Wirrabura Road going crazy
Car doors being heard slamming
 

marlywings

Former Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
12,282
Reaction score
126
As we know TM was a witness for the prosecution. Why? Why not the defence so that she could stick up for her GG? :sick:

TM was escorted to and from both the committal hearing and the trial by detectives in an unmarked police car. Why?

No other witness was afforded this security, not even the despised NBC! TM's evidence was not all that damning IMO. Yes she gave details of the affair with GBC. Immoral to some perhaps but not illegal. She really didn't reveal anything new at the trial, it was basically what she'd stated at the committal hearing. So why the security for her?

After TM completed her testimony last week the judge stated that Ms. McHugh was now excused from the trial. Excused from the trial? This is what's niggling me. So is she excused and cannot be recalled by the defence? Or is she excused from the trial and not permitted to hear the testimony of other witnesses because she may be recalled?

Can anyone shed more light on this please?

I'm just hoping that TM is called back at the 11th hour and throws GBC off the bus and under the bloody train!

Yes it's all smelling very ratty re TM although maybe she's treading carefully with BC family.

I know in Gittany case one of the witnesses had police escort/protection. He was a witness to Gittany throwing Lisa Harnum over the balcony railings. He'd also moved to US some time before the trial began. I could understand him wanting protection especially from that family.
 

silverau

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
369
Reaction score
1,312
But they actually did show that the "good wife" episode did have that phrase in it on that night, so I don't believe that is actually relevant....

Too many variables. Could have been on DVD, VHS or downloaded/streamed or something discussed "at the water cooler"
 

digitup

New Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
I put Gerard into the category of the Dunning–Kruger effect the moment he emerged from his car in that tiny news clip , the only one he ever fell over into speaking to a reporter.. with Olivia , eyes swivelling madly, right up there with him..

Dunning-Kruger is a syndrome named after a bank robber who covered his face in lemon juice in the firm belief this would fox the CCTV cameras.. no one knows where he dreamed this belief up, but he became the subject of a study at Cornell U and it threw up surprising results and conclusions..

Dunning and Kruger were awarded the 2000 satirical Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology for their paper, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments".


Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just a little bit hurt
 

Lotsa

New Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Yes I believe this, but we don't seem to have any evidence that places him there...?

I'm hoping the Prosecution case is that Alison died/was killed at home and that given her body was found at Kholo Creek and she could not have magically teleported herself there once deceased it must have been GBC and he thereby interfered with her body... Not sure if they need evidence he was there, but given they've closed their case, I'm hoping if the jury accepts she died at home at the hands of GBC then the logical conclusion would be that GBC moved Alison to her final resting place.
 

Amee

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
6,197
Reaction score
4
OK folks, I really need the quote from the prosecution stating the hair in the blood in car was DNA matched to Allison - from the prosecution's opening address. Someone found it very helpfully many threads and pages ago - <modsnip>&#8230;.

He said a hair attached to the blood stain was later confirmed with DNA as belonging to Ms Baden-Clay.


PROSECUTOR Todd Fuller QC has opened the Crown case in the trial of Gerard Baden-Clay, 43, who stands accused of murdering his wife Allison June Baden-Clay on April 19, 2012.

http://m.news.com.au/QLD/pg/2/fi11723293.htm
 

silverau

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
369
Reaction score
1,312
I've also been wondering about OW's comment "the truth will come out". Did I blink & miss it??

And a random thought...

Allison could not have walked 14kms to the bridge with all that leaf matter, pieces of a trailing plant, in her hair. No woman would do that.

I wonder what OW thinks of that ^^^

Possibly in a tell all book making $$$
 

JK673

New Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
702
Reaction score
0
If this is all over then what was gerreds sister talking about with the truth will come out?LL

It is very true, the truth will come out....it is just that I don't think she will be happy with it if it means her brother is found guilty.

I wonder how she will go all this time praying for the truth to come out and then her brother is found guilty....will she accept that the truth was delivered??

Sent using Tapatalk
 

JAM13

New Member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
But they actually did show that the "good wife" episode did have that phrase in it on that night, so I don't believe that is actually relevant....

Fair enough that was before she went missing. What about 10 minutes before he called the QPS he once again looked up the term "self incrimination"?
 

KG1

Registered user
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
1,212
Reaction score
35
As we know TM was a witness for the prosecution. Why? Why not the defence so that she could stick up for her GG? :sick:

TM was escorted to and from both the committal hearing and the trial by detectives in an unmarked police car. Why?

No other witness was afforded this security, not even the despised NBC! TM's evidence was not all that damning IMO. Yes she gave details of the affair with GBC. Immoral to some perhaps but not illegal. She really didn't reveal anything new at the trial, it was basically what she'd stated at the committal hearing. So why the security for her?

After TM completed her testimony last week the judge stated that Ms. McHugh was now excused from the trial. Excused from the trial? This is what's niggling me. So is she excused and cannot be recalled by the defence? Or is she excused from the trial and not permitted to hear the testimony of other witnesses because she may be recalled?

Can anyone shed more light on this please?

I'm just hoping that TM is called back at the 11th hour and throws GBC off the bus and under the bloody train!

I think she is excused - period, Makara. No more TM at trial.
 

Oddsocks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
1,111
Reaction score
1,096
Fair enough that was before she went missing. What about 10 minutes before he called the QPS he once again looked up the term "self incrimination"?

That was just opening up safari app I'm assuming.
 

Berry

Gotch ya
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
683
Reaction score
0
Is the defence bluffing here?? Like they did in committal!? No case to answer - just giving it a go? OR are they that confident that they think they've proven their case? I realise the judge has rejected that but it's not up to him is it? Just trying to understand the strategy here? Anyone want to weigh in?

What's the demeanor of both sides? God what I'd give to be a fly on the wall!

I have no idea what to think.

In our Westminster Rule of Law, at the close of the prosecution's case during a criminal trial, the defendant may submit to the judge or magistrate that there is no case for the defendant to answer.

If the judge does not accept the submission, the case continues and the defence must present their case.

Because a judge's refusal to uphold such a submission may potentially bias a jury's decision, a submission of No Case to Answer is usually heard in the absence of the jury.

This is normal and done sooooo often.....
 

Thinking

New Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
0
Sort of OT but personally I think looking up "self-incrimination" on Wikipedia the day before your wife disappears - only to turn up dead 10 days later - is in itself self-incriminating.

It doesn't just speak, it shrieks to me of premeditation. I can only hope the jury sees it that way too.

Agreed! But was this evidence even led? There seems to be so much that wasn't :(
 

kiwi50

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
5,445
I think the verdict will hinge on the Judges summing up, and how he instructs the jurors
on "reasonable doubt" it is such a vague concept and every juror may interpret it differently.
 

JCB

Active Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
224
Reaction score
47
Totally agree Trooper. In their deliberations the jury will consider (or the judge may decide to direct them to consider) IF they find GBC not guilty of the charges, and a murder has been committed (which is now a fact given the proceedings today) whom in fact committed this murder. If someone else did who had the motive, means and opportunity to do so. This would be a seriously difficult consideration as no other person except GBC had the MMO.
All IMOO

Again I don't mean to pick but I cannot agree with anything in your post.

It is not a fact that ABC was murdered, nothing in today's proceedings (or at any stage during the trial for that matter) established conclusively that she was the victim of any kind of homicide. This will only be proved (in a legal sense) upon conviction and the rejection of all subsequent appeals, should any occur.

In cases such as this, a Judge will never direct a jury to consider whether another person had the motive or opportunity to commit the crime. Barring an individual being specifically excluded at trial for whatever reason, literally any person on earth could be responsible, we do not know because no such evidence was led. The only exception is when the defence nominates a specific person who they believe may be responsible, this was the case recently during Peter Cowan's trial for the murder of Daniel Morcombe. Douglas Jackway was put forward by the defence as an alternative and as such, the jury was required to consider whether he was involved and if so, the extent of his involvement.

I realise that emotions run high in cases such as this but unfounded and just plain incorrect speculation just confuses the issue for those watching on the sideline who have limited legal knowledge.
 

DunnoZo

New Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
409
Reaction score
0
I think the verdict will hinge on the Judges summing up, and how he instructs the jurors
on "reasonable doubt" it is such a vague concept and every juror may interpret it differently.

:goodpost:
 

Total

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
0
Again I don't mean to pick but I cannot agree with anything in your post.

It is not a fact that ABC was murdered, nothing in today's proceedings (or at any stage during the trial for that matter) established conclusively that she was the victim of any kind of homicide. This will only be proved (in a legal sense) upon conviction and the rejection of all subsequent appeals, should any occur.

In cases such as this, a Judge will never direct a jury to consider whether another person had the motive or opportunity to commit the crime. Barring an individual being specifically excluded at trial for whatever reason, literally any person on earth could be responsible, we do not know because no such evidence was led. The only exception is when the defence nominates a specific person who they believe may be responsible, this was the case recently during Peter Cowan's trial for the murder of Daniel Morcombe. Douglas Jackway was put forward by the defence as an alternative and as such, the jury was required to consider whether he was involved and if so, the extent of his involvement.

I realise that emotions run high in cases such as this but unfounded and just plain incorrect speculation just confuses the issue for those watching on the sideline who have limited legal knowledge.
I think you just provided your own precedence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top