The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 7th July - Trial Day 15

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can i ask people who've been to court - are sangas a deadly weapon? I seem to remember food not being allowed at Ipswich court and didn't know if it was the same. Not that I want to eat them IN court but I want a packed lunch for my venture into the big smoke.

I'm awake trying to remember how to use public transport and where to catch buses and realised that I could start walking now and be there in a few hours. Then that put it more into perspective: she "walked" the distance from their house to the city. I just can't see that as something someone unwell and stumbling could do.

I did notice that some people took their own lunch. I think you would be okay to take sandwiches in your bag.
 
Thanks tangled. I ended up deciding that bed was too warm and l had other things to do while I'm in town and couldn't afford a whole day in there when WS gives me such great coverage. :-(
 
The defence may as well also have said to the jury, "it is also open to you than an alien space space hovered about the house and teleported Allison up into the ship, then it moved to Kholo bridge and teleported her onto the creek bank. Now you may reject that but it is open to you to consider"
Alioop, this scenario sounds slightly more plausible than the one they were left to consider yesterday.
I was actually thinking about exactly this (aliens, space craft, and an out of the blue abduction) when I wrote the summation post last night.
The summation was as presented in court yesterday, ended up looking a bit loopy! IMO.
 
The defence may as well also have said to the jury, "it is also open to you than an alien space space hovered about the house and teleported Allison up into the ship, then it moved to Kholo bridge and teleported her onto the creek bank. Now you may reject that but it is open to you to consider"
Byrne didn't have much to work with, IMO.
He tried hard, under instructions to present an innocent scenario. Hampered by Gerard's own long soliloquy.
 
Thanks for all the tweets and updates today. One question that I have is probably for Alioop. I have limited experience with courts (very grateful for that), so
I may just be naive. My understanding is that everyone needs to speak the truth in court. Of course the jury will need to decide whether defendants and witnesses are speaking the truth or not and of course unfortunately lies will sometimes be told under oath. The extension of this understanding would be that a defense barrister would need to only present what he knows to be truth too. Of course if his or her client has told them a lie they will still present that assuming that it is true. That makes sense to me. Unless told otherwise the defense barrister at least outwardly believes their client. Of course inwardly there is always the chance that they have a different personal opinion. What I find to be confusing is when evidence is presented to the jury as fact when it seems to be already proven that it is not. I know the job of the defense barrister is to create doubt, but it can't be ethical to misrepresent things to the jury. Examples where this seemed to be happening today with the defense summary were when he suggested that Alison could have been shifted to the spot she was found in through tidal movements where I thought that all of the reports indicated that she was in the position she was found in very soon after her death. Another example was when he said that Alison could have jumped, but this seems to be in contrast to her body being found under the bridge with no broken bones. Of course I have not sat in the court and heard all the evidence and I am not an expert. In the interests of justice shouldn't known truthful facts be left as known truthful facts. It seems unfair and unethical to create confusion about these type of facts for the jury. I can understand creating doubt about things like who put the phone on the charger at 1:48am, whether the blood in the back of the Captiva was the result of Alison being transported to Kholo in the car or not, and even how she died. I also thought that there was evidence that she didn't drown and so I wondered why that come up again too. My other question is about how people speak of a victim in a court case. In the very limited court cases I have supported people through and therefore witnessed, the legal people always gave me the idea that alleged victim's need to be spoken to and about in respectful and non condemnatory ways, even if a defendant believed that an alleged victim was lying and had character flaws. In this case Alison is a true victim. There is no question about whether or not she has experienced an injustice, nor is there a question about whether she is telling the truth or not, as she lost her life and can't "speak" to defend herself. Again, I am not in the courtroom, and have only followed the case from afar, but the impression I got was that at times Alison was portrayed very negatively...... yet she is the victim. This confused me as to why this was allowed, as it seemed (from a distance) in some ways to be disrespectful. Alioop, can you please explain. It might be that I live in a different part of Australia and there are different rules and expectations about how defense teams speak about victims. I don't know. These are just my observations and questions from a distance as we wait for justice for this beautiful lady and her family.

Morning Seeking. Thank you for your post. Just want to reassure you that I too have had similar questions about the legal ethics of the DT in trashing the victim in defense of the alleged murderer. I'm querying the merits of contacting the QLD DPP to enquire where to raise these concerns. It disturbs me too. My opinion only.
 
I was thinking last night about how desperate I was for any news during the brad Murdoch trial ( Peter falconio disappearance ) and how there might be a bit of something on the news but I really had to wait for the weekend to get the big article in the papers . This is awesome . Thank you to all the tweet guys you are doing a great job . And thanks to websleuths . I really love to read what others are thinking. . I don't post much as I'm not so great with words but hope you can feel my gratitude . Thanks
 
I was thinking last night about how desperate I was for any news during the brad Murdoch trial ( Peter falconio disappearance ) and how there might be a bit of something on the news but I really had to wait for the weekend to get the big article in the papers . This is awesome . Thank you to all the tweet guys you are doing a great job . And thanks to websleuths . I really love to read what others are thinking. . I don't post much as I'm not so great with words but hope you can feel my gratitude . Thanks
 
Morning Seeking. Thank you for your post. Just want to reassure you that I too have had similar questions about the legal ethics of the DT in trashing the victim in defense of the alleged murderer. I'm querying the merits of contacting the QLD DPP to enquire where to raise these concerns. It disturbs me too. My opinion only.

That's fantastic Fusker....thankyou for that....it is so damn unfair....I am so naïve I had no idea this happened....someone has a saying on the bottom of their page....This is a court of Law young man not a court of ...um ....is it justice....anyway.it is so bloody right...disgusting xxxxx
:jail::jail::jail:
 
Even if Allison wanted to overdose, she didn't have enough tablets. Her last script was filled mid march, so she was due for a refill. The whole sertraline theory is complete hogwash anyway. They would have been better off trying to sell the idea that some random person killed her.

Why did Gerard never ask for justice to be served and the real killer be found? Why imagine a far fetched theory such as this? Ugh, the whole thing is very frustrating.
 
Brizzymum, Trooper, Makara, Fuskier....all of you who are here supporting Allison.....WS.....don't really know what I am saying. I am awake for the third time tonight and every time I wake up I start getting angry at what was being said and implied today. So after awhile laying in the dark fuming ....I come back on here...and every single time somehow the right words and sentiments are there. THANK YOU...

My thoughts are very much with Allison's parents, her girls, family and friends. If I can feel angry at what is happening and has happened, I cannot even begin to imagine their anguish.

Hearing all that yesterday from the DT was hard Total. They have 'trashed' Allison in defense of her alleged murderer. They were 'out of touch' with the multiple demands upon mothers today and used 'misogny' as their lens through which to view their defense. Our feelings of anger have meaning. It signals 'injustice'. My opinion only.

:grouphug:
 
I didn't know Allison personally, but have a good friend who did. I'm not a verified insider, so take what i say as you will. My friend said that A was the most lovely lady and a wonderful mother. She said her daughters were so well brought up, and that A strived to provide them with confidence and self-esteem, whilst loving them and raising them. Just wanted to add my insight, to counter the awful picture painted yesterday of the victim. Let's hope today has us all a whole lot closer to justice!
 
Hearing all that yesterday from the DT was hard Total. They have 'trashed' Allison in defense of her alleged murderer. They were 'out of touch' with the multiple demands upon mothers today and used 'misogny' as their lens through which to view their defense. Our feelings of anger have meaning. It signals 'injustice'. My opinion only.

:grouphug:

It felt like a public victim blaming, which is just horrendous.
 
Byrne didn't have much to work with, IMO.
He tried hard, under instructions to present an innocent scenario. Hampered by Gerard's own long soliloquy.

Completely agree LB. Byrne QC is clearly a very intelligent man. He was probably cringing the whole day yesterday. He isn't in an enviable position, and only being paid legal aid rates for his efforts!
 
Ok Mr Fuller, vocal warm up time again - give me a C major (nothing minor today) arpeggio - la la la la la la laaaaa! Bring it on!
 
Unfortunately, victim bashing is a global phenomenon. Kathy Savio was termed a hellcat. Michelle Young was sexually frigid after being raped in college. Nancy Cooper spent too much money. Kate Prout was an abusive alcoholic. Travis Alexander was a paedophile and physically abusive. Rachel Souza was painted as the murderer of her own child.

That's what each defence team put forward in their zeal to defend their clients. Revolting and infuriating. I personally believe it's an attempt to dehumanise the victim so a jury doesn't sympathise with them. In theory, making them less likely to convict the defendant.

However, I also believe most juries are far too intelligent to be swayed by such an underhanded tactic. Each of the aforementioned victims accused killers were convicted of their murders. Drew Peterson, Jason Young, Brad Cooper, Adrian Prout, Jodi Arias, and Neil Entwistle. (Jason Young and Brad Cooper are being granted new trials though after successful appeals. Lots of problems in North Carolina's criminal justice system.)

All JMO
 
Ok Mr Fuller, vocal warm up time again - give me a C major (nothing minor today) arpeggio - la la la la la la laaaaa! Bring it on!

Court reporter Snails checking in for the morning session. Will send through my report when done. Looking forward to Todd Fuller squashing everything that was said yesterday, and then some.
 
Dr Schramm said the medication peaked at around 6 to 8 hours, roughly the time when she went to the hairdressers, Mr Byrne said. :waitasec:

About 4am, on the figures Dr Schramm gave you, the drugs would peak in her blood stream, the medication would be absorbed in her system, and was no longer present in her stomach, but we know the levels are in the blood

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-allison-in-2012/story-fnihsrf2-1226979525605
 
Sky News Australia ‏@SkyNewsAust 1h

Gerard Baden-Clay's defence team will finish summing up its case today, then prosecution will begin #badenclay (@liztilley84)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
211
Guests online
1,229
Total visitors
1,440

Forum statistics

Threads
596,790
Messages
18,053,834
Members
230,095
Latest member
TMich6811
Back
Top