Discussion in 'Allison Baden-Clay of Australia' started by marlywings, Jun 3, 2014.
Ok enough of the birthing stories.
Back on topic thanks.
If there is to be a conviction I really hope it is for murder, a manslaughter conviction is going to open up a tremendous can of worms.
A manslaughter conviction means that GBC will have been found not guilty of murder and barring exceptional evidence surfacing again in the future, can never be retried for that offence.
Neither the Crown or the defence made any case for manslaughter and it would be an absolute sentencing nightmare for Justice Byrne. How do you sentence someone who is found guilty of an offence that nobody - defence, prosecution or Judge, thought was the appropriate charge in the first instance? Can you make a serious violent offender order when so little is known about the manner in which Allison died?
Then comes the prospect of an appeal, it worries me that a manslaughter conviction will come under close scrutiny because neither side led any evidence to suggest that it was indeed manslaughter. The case may well be made that the verdict of manslaughter was not supported by the evidence led at trial.
JMO but manslaughter would be a huge cop out from the jury. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that, if Allison was the victim of a homicide, it was anything less than murder. To my way of thinking the only jurors who would be thinking along the lines of manslaughter are those who cannot convince themselves of his guilt but yet don't want to see him walk and are advocating for a watered down charge. Surely it has to be either murder or outright acquittal.
You know that feeling when you wish you could unread something
Come on jury! Put us out of our misery please!
I don't think we'all get a verdict until tomorrow.
Secret crush..:waitasec: thinking, thinking...
Nope... not even just a little bit, don't think his charms would work on me at all.
Not even if he was wearing a fire fighter uniform? Or a Todd-esque cape??!! ;-)
I completely agree with all of your thoughts here JCB. Why did Justice Byrne make such a point about the possibility of manslaughter then? This was a surprise to me. Was he legally obligated to do so? It seemed to come out of the blue - it had never been flagged before in this case.
:laughing: hmm.. No once he opened his mouth and the drivel came out... nah- lost me. I don't find him attractive in the least- just so its out there on record.
I believe he did say he was legally obliged to do so but also mentioned he is in no way implying that it was.
Yes he was. He did tell the jury that there was no evidence to suggest manslaughter and that he was only giving them the option because he was legally obliged.
I agree. There should be no hedging their bets with a manslaughter conviction. It's all or nothing in this one.
If, after a reasonable period of time, the jurors cannot reach a verdict, the judge discharges them and orders a new trial. A jury that cannot agree is called a ‘hung jury’. If the verdict is not guilty the defendant is acquitted and set free. If the verdict is guilty the judge will sentence the defendant.
Any person who causes the death of another, directly or indirectly and by any means whatever, is deemed to have killed that other person: s 293
Sarah Greenhalgh ‏@GreenhalghSarah 1m
Jurors have been deliberating for more than 18 hours. Haven't heard from them yet today #badenclay @tennewsqld
This is an open and shut case, but its so hard to convince 9 people to agree on almost anything. There is always at least 1 muppet. For him to get acquitted it also requires a unanimous verdict?
That's my understanding. But at least 1 juror wanted the distinction clarified and that concerns me Personally I thought Justice Byrne made it perfectly clear (well as far as the law would allow), that manslaughter was not on the table here but evidently not. Alioop said something along the same lines earlier today, juries are a total lottery. You could get 12 intelligent individuals or you could get a jury where their combined IQ would struggle to reach room temperature and their only serious deliberations were deciding what part of their jury service pay was to go on alcohol, and what part would be put aside for drugs.
Yes that's right (except you need to convince 11 other people in this case).
Jamie McKinnell ‏@jamie86 4m
18 hours, still no verdict @NewsTalk4BC #badenclay
It's interesting that there has been no further questions by the jury of the judge for clarification on anything since those first couple on Thursday arvo and early on Friday. For transparency as part of the legal process if they ask for more info or direction from the judge the court resumes and it is all recorded. So for the best part of 2 days they have just been deliberating for themselves. Could mean a struggle to get agreement, but also could mean they are combing every detail, dotting all I'm and crossing all t's, to make sure they have followed due process in arriving at a decision.
Marissa Calligeros ‏@marissa_sc · 1m
Jury deliberations in the #badenclay trial have entered their 18th hour @brisbanetimes