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

[Deleted member 102539]

Car
Crashes
Captiva
Colonial

cell (Prison)
cell phone
charming
church
Courier-Mail
camper
Coast (Gold Coast)

 

[Trooper]

Any reason why GBC would wrap the razor in Glad Wrap??? Is that what you gents on WS do too? :facepalm:

the razor is his holy grail. it is the cornerstone of his story that those gouges, all three of 'em were done by the artefact in question.. he could no more bin it than fly.. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrapped it up in his precious yellow jacket to transport it to mum and dads.. propped it there on the mantelpiece.. from Gerards point of view, it is his proof that it was just a normal morning in Brookie.. Gerard making the school lunches, turning on the hot rollers for the wife, getting the kids ready, and helloooo??? where is the wife??

everything depends on the razor.

 

[Fluffykins]

Well that's fair enough since you're in Germany Here in Australia the majority of the shows on TV are imported from the US, and in our own language (kinda)

:giggle:

(bbm)

 

[Fluffykins]

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

Having finally battled through to the end of this thread, I just had to go back and check this out again to enjoy it at my leisure. I'm totally :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[KG1]

there would be a lot of sighing and soulsearching in Cell Block B at the Arthur Gorrie Centre tonight.. lots of tossing and turning and many repeats of the corned beef sandwich imbibed for supper..


will he.. or wont he?? he has to go first if he is going to go.. so the wait will not be ultra excruciatingly prolonged...

does Gerard think he can outsmart and out charm Danny Boyle?? has Danny played it low key all this time to lure Gerard into thinking this?? will Gerard take Mr Byrnes heavily paid for, or at least heavily billed for, perhaps not exactly as yet paid for advice??

A really important 'C' word in your post Trooper - CELL, CELL, CELL

 

[FigTree]

Last thoughts before sleeptime ...
I have been trying to put together what was given as evidence and not bring in anything that was left out.
Possibly the evidence presented to the court has narrowed the focus considerably to the location and enabled jurors to get past or 'beyond' reasonable doubt[/B].


I think the Prosecution have what they need for the 2 convictions - and they have kept a keen focus related to a designated location - the house.
Even with the Botanists evidence taking the case to Kholo Creek, the focus came back to the house.
The proven false scratches/razor incident was said by the accused to have happened at the house.
The majority of Plant matter found on the deceased was from the House property.
The blood in the car was located in the driveway of the house property.
It has been determined that a death has occurred which was not by natural means and that the person was known to be at that house before being reported missing.
The strength that the murder took place is designated to the house/property.

And I think it is there that the Prosecution are affirming that the incident took place at that location - beyond reasonable doubt.

so if there is no doubt with those facts...
The person holding not one, but at least 3 substantial MO's was located at the house during the time.
There was no other person said to be at the house or the property than the accused and 2 children.

For the evidence to reveal what it has conclusively, and for there being no other credible explanation provided to contest or include any other persons involvement at the house; any doubt that the accused was not involved would be unreasonable in the context of the evidence presented as it stands.

---

Ok - you can now tell I need sleep
Rambling.
I'm sure someone can throw that into 2 sentences and make sense of it all still. (I hope )
One more lap around the board and Im fftobed:

.

 

[Makara]

Gerard Baden-Clay to reveal whether he will give or call evidence as prosecution wraps up case in trial for murder of wife Allison

GERARD Baden-Clay will reveal today if he intends to call or give evidence in his defence.

The former Brookfield real estate agent, 43, has pleaded not guilty in the Supreme Court in Brisbane to murdering his wife Allison Baden-Clay and to dumping her body 13km away beneath the Kholo Creek bridge at Anstead on April 19, 2012.

Brooke Baskin
The Courier-Mail
June 26, 201412:00AM

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-of-wife-allison/story-fnihsrf2-1226966924597

 

[ThaiBali]

vomit that is so weak . maybe summing up will emphasise all this. if he walks there will be another investigation as to who did it , and what about interfering with a corpse charge , there was sweet FA

Noooooooooooooooooo the prosecution have blown this...why..gbc could be looking at a lesser charge of manslaughter deduct time already served.

If he gets off on a lesser charge he won't get the much wanted insurance.

The poor Dickie's and the girls if they are returned to gbc I'd say he'd make things difficult for them to see the girls on a regular basis.

Why did Adam turn up...do they know something we don't?

There's something up, the bc's senior turned up looking extremely confident today.

 

[itsthevibe]

What an exhausting but unbelievable day. I'm finally able to come ond and make a couple of posts before Court begins again, this time at 11am.

I have checked mainstream media and the only thing reported other than the list of "irrefutable facts" was that the jury was asked to leave and there was legal argument. So i won't say a lot more than i already posted this afternoon in terms of the details of what was said in court, but I did just want to clarify a little as I noticed some discussions surmised incorrectly on a few things, understandably considering there wasn't much to go on if you weren't in the court.

So, the legal argument went on for an hour and a half, maybe more, not sure because I was first quite surprised that the Crown suddenly said they rested their case, just prior to the legal argument phase beginning. I was still trying to get my head around this (due to the fact that i was hoping for more bombshell evidence, or something, anything, that seemed more like a strong trump card from the Prosecution) when the legal argument started, as well as listen to the opening rationale from the Defence about what they were about to submit.

As well, as this phase proceeded, I was continually getting booted off WS, probably due to the huge numbers accessing it.

I will say what the legal argument wasn't implying, and just do an overview, without detailing the discussions and arguments. As others have pointed out, there are often standard legal arguments put forward at this juncture - this juncture meaning after the prosecution has rested their case, and prior to any further witnesses being called by the Defence. I assume this occurs at this time if deemed necessary by the Defence after hearing the Prosecutions case, as it may help their client and help them in how to proceed. MOO

A submission is put forward more or less saying there is no case to answer for the crime being tried, in the hope of either the case being dropped then and there, or a lesser crime being deemed more relevant. So this is what happened here. Suicide or manslaughter wasn't mentioned.

Anyway I will say the Judge was absolutely rigorous in his approach to both the Defence regarding the basis of their submission, and also towards the Prosectuion as they refuted the submission. The Judge totally played the devil's advocate (which i assume is what is supposed to happen) on both sides of the coin. I have to say it was an impressive display of impartiality, combined with an aggressive approach to arguing against both sides to draw out what would really hold up and force them both to justify their arguments.

At the end of it the Judge made his ruling that there was a case to answer for murder - not that he was saying he believed there was a murder, just that there was enough of a case to present to the jury to allow them to make up their own minds.

I found the whole legal argument style quite shocking and intriguing. Can't explain why, but perhaps one day i can come on and discuss it after it is all done and dusted.

It has left me quite puzzled too, and wondering if the Prosecution case is stronger than I thought? It's so hard to know.

Oh yes, also apparently a decision will be being made tonight as to whether, in the light of this, GBC will or will not be taking the stand. I think this may have been discussed here anyway. Also it looks like early next week both sides will make their final arguments.

Sorry for this long-winded, obtuse post! Just my way of gathering my thoughts for the day.

I'm intrigued as to what Thursday will bring!

 

[Makara]

Thank you very much itsthevibe. It truly was nail biting stuff this afternoon wondering what exactly was going on in court. You've explained it extremely well without letting the cat out of the bag so to speak.

I just posted a link ^upthread^ in regard to GBC taking the stand tomorrow.

What are the odds do you think? I'd place a 50/50 bet at this stage but I'm thinking he may just be stupid enough to do it. Hope so. :jail:

What an exhausting but unbelievable day. I'm finally able to come ond and make a couple of posts before Court begins again, this time at 11am.

I have checked mainstream media and the only thing reported other than the list of "irrefutable facts" was that the jury was asked to leave and there was legal argument. So i won't say a lot more than i already posted this afternoon in terms of the details of what was said in court, but I did just want to clarify a little as I noticed some discussions surmised incorrectly on a few things, understandably considering there wasn't much to go on if you weren't in the court.

So, the legal argument went on for an hour and a half, maybe more, not sure because I was first quite surprised that the Crown suddenly said they rested their case, just prior to the legal argument phase beginning. I was still trying to get my head around this (due to the fact that i was hoping for more bombshell evidence, or something, anything, that seemed more like a strong trump card from the Prosecution) when the legal argument started, as well as listen to the opening rationale from the Defence about what they were about to submit.

As well, as this phase proceeded, I was continually getting booted off WS, probably due to the huge numbers accessing it.

I will say what the legal argument wasn't implying, and just do an overview, without detailing the discussions and arguments. As others have pointed out, there are often standard legal arguments put forward at this juncture - this juncture meaning after the prosecution has rested their case, and prior to any further witnesses being called by the Defence. I assume this occurs at this time if deemed necessary by the Defence after hearing the Prosecutions case, as it may help their client and help them in how to proceed. MOO

A submission is put forward more or less saying there is no case to answer for the crime being tried, in the hope of either the case being dropped then and there, or a lesser crime being deemed more relevant. So this is what happened here. Suicide or manslaughter wasn't mentioned.

Anyway I will say the Judge was absolutely rigorous in his approach to both the Defence regarding the basis of their submission, and also towards the Prosectuion as they refuted the submission. The Judge totally played the devil's advocate (which i assume is what is supposed to happen) on both sides of the coin. I have to say it was an impressive display of impartiality, combined with an aggressive approach to arguing against both sides to draw out what would really hold up and force them both to justify their arguments.

At the end of it the Judge made his ruling that there was a case to answer for murder - not that he was saying he believed there was a murder, just that there was enough of a case to present to the jury to allow them to make up their own minds.

I found the whole legal argument style quite shocking and intriguing. Can't explain why, but perhaps one day i can come on and discuss it after it is all done and dusted.

It has left me quite puzzled too, and wondering if the Prosecution case is stronger than I thought? It's so hard to know.

Oh yes, also apparently a decision will be being made tonight as to whether, in the light of this, GBC will or will not be taking the stand. I think this may have been discussed here anyway. Also it looks like early next week both sides will make their final arguments.

Sorry for this long-winded, obtuse post! Just my way of gathering my thoughts for the day.

I'm intrigued as to what Thursday will bring!

 

[itsthevibe]

I realise most people have gone to bed now, but maybe some will read in the morning.

One thing I have been wondering is the way to define or determine 'intent' from the legal point of view. I believe that in the early days of WS and this case, we discussed this, in terms of what was an intention to kill, even if in the heat of the moment.

Even if you didn't premeditate a murder, you could still have an intent to kill, an intention formed within a short space of time, not a planned, longer term space of time. That is my view, and would be interested to discuss.

I feel that sometimes the two things are confused, and conclusions are formed that there was no intent to kill if there was no premeditation.

But if you get angry at someone, you can, perhaps over the space of an hour or so, start to despise that person for what they represent, for what they perhaps highlight in you that you don't want to see, for the difficulties they cause you because of the barriers they present to you living your life the way you want, so you decide in that short period to wipe out what is before you. As a quick fix, maybe with heightened emotions, yes, you decide you want to eliminate them, and you do. Then you realise the horrible consequences of this, and you may even regret it.

But does that mean the killing was an accident, and that there was no intent?

 

[KG1]

What an exhausting but unbelievable day. I'm finally able to come ond and make a couple of posts before Court begins again, this time at 11am.

I have checked mainstream media and the only thing reported other than the list of "irrefutable facts" was that the jury was asked to leave and there was legal argument. So i won't say a lot more than i already posted this afternoon in terms of the details of what was said in court, but I did just want to clarify a little as I noticed some discussions surmised incorrectly on a few things, understandably considering there wasn't much to go on if you weren't in the court.

So, the legal argument went on for an hour and a half, maybe more, not sure because I was first quite surprised that the Crown suddenly said they rested their case, just prior to the legal argument phase beginning. I was still trying to get my head around this (due to the fact that i was hoping for more bombshell evidence, or something, anything, that seemed more like a strong trump card from the Prosecution) when the legal argument started, as well as listen to the opening rationale from the Defence about what they were about to submit.

As well, as this phase proceeded, I was continually getting booted off WS, probably due to the huge numbers accessing it.

I will say what the legal argument wasn't implying, and just do an overview, without detailing the discussions and arguments. As others have pointed out, there are often standard legal arguments put forward at this juncture - this juncture meaning after the prosecution has rested their case, and prior to any further witnesses being called by the Defence. I assume this occurs at this time if deemed necessary by the Defence after hearing the Prosecutions case, as it may help their client and help them in how to proceed. MOO

A submission is put forward more or less saying there is no case to answer for the crime being tried, in the hope of either the case being dropped then and there, or a lesser crime being deemed more relevant. So this is what happened here. Suicide or manslaughter wasn't mentioned.

Anyway I will say the Judge was absolutely rigorous in his approach to both the Defence regarding the basis of their submission, and also towards the Prosectuion as they refuted the submission. The Judge totally played the devil's advocate (which i assume is what is supposed to happen) on both sides of the coin. I have to say it was an impressive display of impartiality, combined with an aggressive approach to arguing against both sides to draw out what would really hold up and force them both to justify their arguments.

At the end of it the Judge made his ruling that there was a case to answer for murder - not that he was saying he believed there was a murder, just that there was enough of a case to present to the jury to allow them to make up their own minds.

I found the whole legal argument style quite shocking and intriguing. Can't explain why, but perhaps one day i can come on and discuss it after it is all done and dusted.

It has left me quite puzzled too, and wondering if the Prosecution case is stronger than I thought? It's so hard to know.

Oh yes, also apparently a decision will be being made tonight as to whether, in the light of this, GBC will or will not be taking the stand. I think this may have been discussed here anyway. Also it looks like early next week both sides will make their final arguments.

Sorry for this long-winded, obtuse post! Just my way of gathering my thoughts for the day.

I'm intrigued as to what Thursday will bring!

Thank you very much for this very informative post, itsthevibe. You are in a difficult position and that is appreciated by all of us, I am sure.

I think it will be the damnation of GBC if he takes the stand. Not sure what the legal situation is in Qld, but usually if an accused makes an unsworn statement from the stand, then there is no cross examination allowed. If the accused makes a sworn statement, then it is open slather for cross examination. (Some States have disallowed unsworn statements). Going on past performances of the accused, his arrogance, narcissistic personality and self centredness will be his downfall - in either case. He is very unconvincing and his body language in the one brief interview I have seen demonstrates this, also his recorded interviews with the titters and giggles show a person who is less than truthful.
But then the defence may think that there is little to lose now and give it a shot, but I doubt it. JMO

 

[Trooper]

vibe , a fabulous post... much appreciated, nothing obtuse about it, perfectly clear, and exquisitely detailed..

it can be shocking indeed when the law argues with the law... its like a parallel universe at times and at others like a good volley at tennis..

I presume your shock at the Prosecution declaring was shared among your fellow attendees?? oh how I would love to be there.. * rabid moment of pure envy* ..

thanks again .

 

[Makara]

No you're not rambling FigTree. You explained it perfectly and I'm holding with your belief right now.

Sleep well. Another big day tomorrow.

Last thoughts before sleeptime ...
I have been trying to put together what was given as evidence and not bring in anything that was left out.
Possibly the evidence presented to the court has narrowed the focus considerably to the location and enabled jurors to get past or 'beyond' reasonable doubt[/B].


I think the Prosecution have what they need for the 2 convictions - and they have kept a keen focus related to a designated location - the house.
Even with the Botanists evidence taking the case to Kholo Creek, the focus came back to the house.
The proven false scratches/razor incident was said by the accused to have happened at the house.
The majority of Plant matter found on the deceased was from the House property.
The blood in the car was located in the driveway of the house property.
It has been determined that a death has occurred which was not by natural means and that the person was known to be at that house before being reported missing.
The strength that the murder took place is designated to the house/property.

And I think it is there that the Prosecution are affirming that the incident took place at that location - beyond reasonable doubt.

so if there is no doubt with those facts...
The person holding not one, but at least 3 substantial MO's was located at the house during the time.
There was no other person said to be at the house or the property than the accused and 2 children.

For the evidence to reveal what it has conclusively, and for there being no other credible explanation provided to contest or include any other persons involvement at the house; any doubt that the accused was not involved would be unreasonable in the context of the evidence presented as it stands.

---

Ok - you can now tell I need sleep
Rambling.
I'm sure someone can throw that into 2 sentences and make sense of it all still. (I hope )
One more lap around the board and Im fftobed:

.

 

[Topsy]

Long time lurker. A quick thank you to everyone for keeping updates happening and all the valuable comments and information.

I have a question. While they were able to pinpoint where Alison's phone was on the day she went missing, were they able to tell what time it was taken off her charger? I would have thought that anyone attending a seminar the next day would have made sure that their phone was fully charged. Have I missed this info?

 

[itsthevibe]

Ha! I'm off to get a cup of tea and some toast and vegemite. Then I'll be back. Sadly I have some emails and small amount of work to do before I go to bed, so I'll check here again shortly and respond briefly to a couple.

 

[ThaiBali]

oh he isn't going to walk free.. he is ipso facto guilty of interfering with a corpse... 15 years ... that's on top of everything else.. he wont be staggering out into the fresh QLD air until 2040.

Oh, Trooper I feel good about it now. Your words of wisdom are so encouraging.

If he takes a lesser charge I'd assume the Insurance will not be forthcoming..that's a win for me.

 

[Makara]

Long time lurker. A quick thank you to everyone for keeping updates happening and all the valuable comments and information.

I have a question. While they were able to pinpoint where Alison's phone was on the day she went missing, were they able to tell what time it was taken off her charger? I would have thought that anyone attending a seminar the next day would have made sure that their phone was fully charged. Have I missed this info?

Welcome Topsy. :welcome: As far as I know there has never been any mention of Allison's phone being on or off a charger. The thing is, she was out for most of the day on the Thursday and would more than likely have had her phone with her. She had a hair appointment that afternoon at 4:00pm. She left the hairdresser between 6:30pm - 7:00pm and then returned home. Her phone was used a few times during the early evening so I would say that she never had the opportunity to place it on a charger.

 

[Trooper]

I realise most people have gone to bed now, but maybe some will read in the morning.

One thing I have been wondering is the way to define or determine 'intent' from the legal point of view. I believe that in the early days of WS and this case, we discussed this, in terms of what was an intention to kill, even if in the heat of the moment.

Even if you didn't premeditate a murder, you could still have an intent to kill, an intention formed within a short space of time, not a planned, longer term space of time. That is my view, and would be interested to discuss.

I feel that sometimes the two things are confused, and conclusions are formed that there was no intent to kill if there was no premeditation.

But if you get angry at someone, you can, perhaps over the space of an hour or so, start to despise that person for what they represent, for what they perhaps highlight in you that you don't want to see, for the difficulties they cause you because of the barriers they present to you living your life the way you want, so you decide in that short period to wipe out what is before you. As a quick fix, maybe with heightened emotions, yes, you decide you want to eliminate them, and you do. Then you realise the horrible consequences of this, and you may even regret it.

But does that mean the killing was an accident, and that there was no intent?

intent.. a slippery slope.. ..

a few thoughts.. it takes about 4 to 5 minutes to strangle someone with your bare hands.. in the law.. that's plenty of time to rethink your situation and desist from that activity.

if you write a letter, say.. along the lines of .. you will be free of this person by a certain date... you don't outline what you mean precisely by this, but the implication can be drawn that you mean free as in that person no longer exists as a living entity... that can be called intent, indeed..

you swing, in a rage, at someone who is standing at the top of the stairs.. they tumble down and break their neck. .. the law sees that as criminally negligent as a starting point and works backwards as to how you manoeuvred that person to the tipping point on the stairs.. .. then it becomes intent.. as you should have foreseen the consequences. ..

it very very much depends on the elements in the entire compass of the crime committed.

or.... you unintentionally donged someone on the head, you say.. they just happened to be within the field of your arc... you were good friends, or even husband and wife. .. some little troubles between you , but nothing major.. but then. you bundle them up, and dispose of their body and maintain a position of bafflement as to their whereabouts.. you keep this up for days. weeks.. the law looks at you with heavy suspicion and the element of intent has to be separated from the actions taken after the event. .. at what point did an accident occur and where did the intent start?

so intriguing.

 

[Trooper]

oh my god .. I forgot that QLD still has the unsworn statement thingy!! or does it??