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

[Freya1977]

From the DPP's Official Guidelines

http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/16701/Directors-guidelines.pdf

"39. WITNESSES

In deciding whether or not to call a particular witness the prosecutor must be fair
to the accused. The general principle is that the Crown should call all witnesses
capable of giving evidence relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The prosecutor should not call:-

• unchallenged evidence that is merely repetitious; or

• a witness who the prosecutor believes on reasonable grounds to be
unreliable. The mere fact that a witness contradicts the Crown case will not
constitute reasonable grounds.

See: Richardson v R (1974) 131 CLR 116; R v Apstolides (1984) 154 CLR 563;
Whitehorn v R (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 664, 682-683.

The defence should be informed at the earliest possible time of the decision not
to call a witness who might otherwise reasonably be expected to be called.
Where appropriate the witness should be made available to the defence. "

So does this mean the prosecution calls all the witnesses they want, and defence can object if they want. Defense can then call any other witnesses who the prosecution hasn't called? Sorry for the questions!

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

 

[digitup]

Monty Python comes to mind..
Life of Brian (Baden). " I'm Brian (Baden) and so is my wife"

"He is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy"

 

[Makara]

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!

 

[Amee]

Baden-Clay trial: Prosecution closes case

Crown prosecutor Todd Fuller QC told the court Mr Baden-Clay was confronted by a convergence of events on the night of his wife's death, saying the 43-year-old had previously been able to keep his two worlds apart.

“Those two women were about to come together again on the 20th of April of 2012," Mr Fuller told the jury.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...closes-case-20140625-zslnz.html#ixzz35dfKN8Ax

 

[Freya1977]

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.

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....

 

[Lotsa]

So does this mean the prosecution calls all the witnesses they want, and defence can object if they want. Defense can then call any other witnesses who the prosecution hasn't called? Sorry for the questions!

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure. My reading of the guidelines was that if the Prosecution have a witness who has relevant and reliable evidence then they need to be called regardless of whether it helps or hinders their case. And that for any witnesses they don't decide to call the defence can use them in addition to any of their own.

I'm not sure the defence can just object to a witness and that means they can't be called. I would expect it would be up to the Judge to decide whether evidence from a witness is relevant and admissible. But I'm no legal eagle, someone with expertise may be able to clarify better than I.

 

[Froglady]

If this is all over then what was gerreds sister talking about with the truth will come out?LL

 

[digitup]

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!

Dib Dib Dib

 

[BJsleuth]

he was so keen on telling folks this yarn.. except Toni, of course. . Although, even to her he spun the story of how he couldn't get out of it due to Alisons fragile mental state..poor old Toni got deadline after deadline... but she always came back for more..

I reckon he couldn't leave.. he had no confidence in himself without Alison. And he could go on for years undermining her to anyone, and he got pleasure in doing that.. no so certain doing it to others.. . Alison was perfect, in that context.

I think he wanted Allison to end the marriage so he didn't have to.... then it's HER fault, not HIS, he's the poor hard done by Husband and Father then, and after all he did for her too. She's the big meanie, responsible for all his failures etc. KWIM?

 

[JCB]

with respect, JCB, it is up to the jury to decide who in fact did commit the murder.. not if a murder was done. The judge has decided that there is , in the light of evidence presented so far, a case to answer..as did the Bail judge, and the Committal Judge.....

....The jury don't decide if a crime was committed.. the judge has rejected the premise that no crime was committed today.

I don't mean to pick but you are mistaken in your belief.

In every case there are certain elements that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In trials heard by a jury, it is up to the jury and the jury alone to decide whether the prosecution has proved every element and thus, secured a conviction.

In a murder trial, obviously the prosecution must prove that a murder did indeed take place and not a suicide, unlawful killing or tragic accident. It is not for the Judge to direct the jury to consider this element proven (or any element for that matter), such a miscarriage of justice would obviously end in a retrial or acquittal on appeal.

Look at the Natasha Ryan case, the prosecution evidence survived the scrutiny of a committal hearing yet Natasha turned up alive during Leonard Fraser's trial. A prima facie case does not mean that all, or any elements have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it only means that sufficient evidence exists to proceed.

Roughly half of all contested trials in Queensland (in the District and Supreme Courts) result in acquittal and barring a hand up committal or a directed verdict at trial, in each and every case the evidence has been examined by a court and deemed sufficient to proceed. Refusing a no case submission (and again this is only speculation, I was not present this afternoon) means very little, in fact it is expected in the vast majority of cases.

 

[marlywings]

If this is all over then what was gerreds sister talking about with the truth will come out?LL

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 ^^^

 

[Thinking]

this is a huge , crushing blow for the Baden-Clays.. huge, and really, .. so depressing for them, collectively and individually..


they probably had a lot riding on it, as I honestly believe they thought they had put up a good show on the stand, deftly explaining the trials and tribulations of Alison and her moods.. .

but the judge has decided that it wasn't Alisons moods that killed her..

Yes trooper, I honestly think that this (Allison's moods) was the "truth" that OW said would be "revealed"....

 

[Freya1977]

I'm not sure. My reading of the guidelines was that if the Prosecution have a witness who has relevant and reliable evidence then they need to be called regardless of whether it helps or hinders their case. And that for any witnesses they don't decide to call the defence can use them in addition to any of their own.

I'm not sure the defence can just object to a witness and that means they can't be called. I would expect it would be up to the Judge to decide whether evidence from a witness is relevant and admissible. But I'm no legal eagle, someone with expertise may be able to clarify better than I.

Thanks Lotsa. It's confusing!

 

[Liadan]

If this is all over then what was gerreds sister talking about with the truth will come out?LL

ho hum nothing as usual!:scared:

 

[Trooper]

Monty Python comes to mind..
Life of Brian (Baden). " I'm Brian (Baden) and so is my wife"

"He is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy"

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

 

[Thinking]

hang in there.. .. Gerards 2nd charge.. interfering with a corpse at the Kholo bridge will sort that out.. once he takes the stand. ( haha)..

that charge unequivocally places Gerard at the Kholo bridge., ... that he, Gerard, interfered with the corpse of Alison at that bridge across the Kholo creek.
how did he get there?

he certainly didn't walk, carrying a corpse.

Yes I believe this, but we don't seem to have any evidence that places him there...?

 

[Total]

with respect, JCB, it is up to the jury to decide who in fact did commit the murder.. not if a murder was done. The judge has decided that there is , in the light of evidence presented so far, a case to answer..as did the Bail judge, and the Committal Judge. The defence submitted that there wasn't a case to answer, today, again, and again, the judge says there is. The case is Murder, and Interfering with a Corpse.. that stands... the jury decides if Gerard did both these crimes, because he is the one charged with both crimes, the inference being that one crime led to the other. That a murder was committed, and in the process of concealing that first crime another serious crime was perpetrated. .

The jury don't decide if a crime was committed.. the judge has rejected the premise that no crime was committed today. The jury will decide if Gerard did them both. Or didn't. On that part, we both agree wholeheartedly.

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

 

[Mumma Bear]

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>

 

[Froglady]

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 ^^^

Especially after it's just been done at the hairdressers!!

 

[Trooper]

If this is all over then what was gerreds sister talking about with the truth will come out?LL

the truth did come out when Olivia testified.. that Olivia is nutso.