The Verdict Waiting Room #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I continue to be confused about the "missing" pyjamas. On Day 12 of the trial, GBC said Allison was wearing pyjamas (only his word, I know) - but I can't figure out why he would say this only to have them missing (apparently) later. When asked by Todd Fuller he gave a ridiculous reply (the pyjamas were not in the photo). I doubt it's in any way critical to the trial but just something that has left me wondering.

Baden-Clay said his wife was wearing blue and white chequered pyjamas, with a sloppy joe and blue hiking socks that she would usually wear around the house.

He said he did not see her wearing anything else.

“When we got home she was already changed into that,” he said of her pyjamas.

So even if the prosecution believed she was never in her PJs, why didn't they call his bluff? It would have worked in their favour either way. Lean on him that the PJs were never found and point out what that implies - they had incriminating evidence. Either that gets emphasised along with more guilt, or he changes his story and says she might have been wearing the daggy Katie's pants after all. Neither scenario looks good for GBC, so I don't know why they didn't use it!
 
I hope the jury are clear that reasonable doubt doesn't mean any doubt. I never heard the judge explain that to them do they get given anything that does?

I feel like the prosecution was able to surprise them in what they said and had a strong case. If it went to a retrial they'd lose that element of surprise. I also fear that GBC wouldn't take the stand again in another trial after seeing how it went here as I think that helped the prosecution. So I don't want them to be hung and I want them to find him guilty ASAP.

Yes Susan12, thinking exactly the same !

Trying to believe they are being prudent...hoping it is NOT going to be overanalysed by a juror into a mistrial etc THAT would be a miscarriage of justice I feel !

I wonder how Todd Fuller and prosecution team and the Police involved are all feeling, as well.
 
I'm not sure whether this is significant:

One juror lingered in the courtroom re-reading Justice Byrne's summation, which was displayed on a large screen, as the other jurors rose from their seats to return to the deliberation room.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gerard-badenclay-trial-three-days-of-deliberations-and-no-verdict-yet-20140714-zt74a.html

I am probably completely wrong but something feels a bit hinky within the jury...I hope there isn't someone being paid off to hang the jury or persuade them to vote not guilty. As I said I am probably wrong but this all feels off...use your logical brains jurors. I work with someone who is incredibly frustrating and argues every point about every word you say (with every staff member) to the point where you want to scream in frustration...I sincerely hope there is not someone with that type of unreasonable personality amongst the ranks.
 
Can I ask anyone familiar with trials if this level of additional clarification normal? Perhaps it is and I am perceiving things incorrectly based on the fact that I honestly believe GBC is guilty based on the evidence presented.
 
Yes Susan12, thinking exactly the same !

Trying to believe they are being prudent...hoping it is NOT going to be overanalysed by a juror into a mistrial etc THAT would be a miscarriage of justice I feel !

I wonder how Todd Fuller and prosecution team and the Police involved are all feeling, as well.

Would so love to know their thoughts at this time. Three detectives arrived at court this afternoon, seeing them in court awaiting a verdict reminded me of the tremendous effort on their part to get this far.
 
Unfortunately no. My mother hasn't been back to the Friday group pretty much since Priscilla left. She didn't like some of the women there. One of them stole her scissors. She goes to some other group on Tuesdays now. One of the other Fridays ladies goes to this Tuesday group. She's always telling me stories of what's happening. These old ducks are cliquey. The group once had their photograph ( I think in the gold coast bulletin) about their knitting squares that they were donating to charity. I scanned it, enlarged and laminated copies for everyone in the group. It's somewhere here on my old hard drive. I really should find

One thing that has alway stuck out in my mind is how much my mum liked Priscilla. She always complemented her on how she looked or what she's made, and made mum feel special. From what mum said about Priscilla, is that she is a special person who is lovely to everyone.

*Sounds to me Allison was carved from the same stone of consideration and kindness
 
I am probably completely wrong but something feels a bit hinky within the jury...I hope there isn't someone being paid off to hang the jury or persuade them to vote not guilty. As I said I am probably wrong but this all feels off...use your logical brains jurors. I work with someone who is incredibly frustrating and argues every point about every word you say (with every staff member) to the point where you want to scream in frustration...I sincerely hope there is not someone with that type of unreasonable personality amongst the ranks.
There is an argument for having professional jurors i think
 
I have been a chatterbox tonight :facepalm: must go to bed:countsheep:
 
So even if the prosecution believed she was never in her PJs, why didn't they call his bluff? It would have worked in their favour either way. Lean on him that the PJs were never found and point out what that implies - they had incriminating evidence. Either that gets emphasised along with more guilt, or he changes his story and says she might have been wearing the daggy Katie's pants after all. Neither scenario looks good for GBC, so I don't know why they didn't use it!
Pretty sure they know what they are doing.....
 
Re: the pyjama pants. There are two seperate conclusions can be drawn:

1. The pyjamas never existed which leads to the question WHY did GBC make it up; or
2. The pyjamas did exist, Alison was wearing them the night before she disappeared and that leaves the questions - Where are the pyjamas and if they're missing, why are they missing? They shouldn't be if it happened as he said it did.
 
I hope the jury are clear that reasonable doubt doesn't mean any doubt. I never heard the judge explain that to them do they get given anything that does?

I feel like the prosecution was able to surprise them in what they said and had a strong case. If it went to a retrial they'd lose that element of surprise. I also fear that GBC wouldn't take the stand again in another trial after seeing how it went here as I think that helped the prosecution. So I don't want them to be hung and I want them to find him guilty ASAP.

One of the crazy rules is that the judge cannot explain what reasonable doubt is, they have to work it out for themselves.
 
There is an argument for having professional jurors i think

I believe that there may be greater risks of corruption and complacency with professional jurors. Currently jurors represent the common people. I believe that most people called to that duty will take it seriously and as it is outside their "normal" experience they may be less ho hum about it than if they were doing it day in day out. All just my opinion.
 
Alioop can I ask is this amount of clarification requested by the jury fairly normal?
 
I believe that there may be greater risks of corruption and complacency with professional jurors. Currently jurors represent the common people. I believe that most people called to that duty will take it seriously and as it is outside their "normal" experience they may be less ho hum about it than if they were doing it day in day out. All just my opinion.
I agree, I have problems with the concept of professional jurors. The south African system is interesting which I am learning about in the Oscar Pistorius trial. They don't have juries at all. In the OP trial there is a judge with 2 assessors who are highly trained lawyers. They help the judge and can jointly overrule her verdict. I think they are on the ball more than the judge.
 
I believe that there may be greater risks of corruption and complacency with professional jurors. Currently jurors represent the common people. I believe that most people called to that duty will take it seriously and as it is outside their "normal" experience they may be less ho hum about it than if they were doing it day in day out. All just my opinion.
Professional jurors can be common people too. Just employ them for longer than they are now..
 
I believe that there may be greater risks of corruption and complacency with professional jurors. Currently jurors represent the common people. I believe that most people called to that duty will take it seriously and as it is outside their "normal" experience they may be less ho hum about it than if they were doing it day in day out. All just my opinion.

I agree with you on that.
 
Alioop can I ask is this amount of clarification requested by the jury fairly normal?

I think so. I think it would be unusual for the jury in a murder trial not to be asking questions.
 
I think a majority of the time juries made up of our peers do serve the community well and assess evidence to the best of their ability. I think having professional jurors could increase the possibility for corruption...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
226
Guests online
630
Total visitors
856

Forum statistics

Threads
596,359
Messages
18,045,953
Members
229,976
Latest member
Missedmycall
Back
Top