Discussion in 'Allison Baden-Clay of Australia' started by marlywings, Jun 3, 2014.
Oh no, falling asleep thinking of you alll and all who love Allison tonight :heartbeat:
If can still be classed as Manslaughter if there was intention to kill (Voluntary Manslaughter). For example: if the jury decided Allison had found out about the ongoing affair, attacked Gerard, and in self-defense he went too far.
PS. Not suggesting this happened, just that Manslaughter is possible with intention.
Even after the verdict whichever way it goes wouldn't we want to still keep discussing it for awhile.
Yes good point. If you are strangling or smothering someone then if they reach out to stop you, and scratch you, then as the judge said, you would normally recoil, and it would be a chance for you to stop, essentially a wakeup call. So if you kept on going, really it is absolutely an indication of intent.
God - the fact the jury asked about this - can it mean they are trying to reach a guilty verdict, or at least manslaughter?
I am wondering if one of the jurors is convinced it is manslaughter and perhaps the others are not and are trying to clarify the definitions correctly for that juror.
On news reports on DAY 1 of the trial it said that GBC has pleaded NOT GUILTY to murdering AND interference of corpse.
Yes, it certainly seems some reasonable, level headed members of the jury are not buying the suicide theory!
But he didn't lead with that defence, he could have, but he went with the "not guilty your honour ...i was asleep defence"
Oh I love this!
What r u talking about
Gee, you are quick. The picture didn't come out and I deleted the post. It was a vivid yellow ribbon in the shape of those breast cancer ones etc.
Oh, Allison's sunflower. Discovered all alone, standing proudly and gladly, tall and beautiful; 'Twas brought home lovingly, and nurtured;
At the very time that Allison's alleged murderer faces judgement. And Allison receives justice. (Hopefully.)
I hope so, at least it's not 'not guilty'.
This is what I think (hope!) too - that the jury has already decided on murder but there is one juror that is not sure whether to go the full mile for 'murder' or whether to 'place it safe' or leave room for some doubt and only go as far as 'manslaughter'.
Hope...Hope....Hope....this is the case!
I'm going the other way, I think the jury is excluding manslaughter on the basis of the defendant's lies, which go to intent.
does the jury retire for lunch or just go straight through
I'm really edgy today and need to get a move on to clean up after myself and drive back to the boonies. This must be so hard for the dickies. It's so near but so far. Waiting is torturous. I have to go through the roundabout to get home, I'll make sure the jury aren't having a seance there on the way.
Someone asked what you'd tell the kids. I think you'd go straight to the most qualified/experienced counseller you could find and get their advice. It just brought to me that this is much more than kids losing both parents, they also have to put up with everyone knowing it and the intimate details. Their name which held such pride will now haunt them. THey'll question everything they knew about everyone they were close to. They'll need long term counselling. THey'll have to go through it all without their beloved mum. Those girls are in for a long hard road.
I believe that the Dickies will have always had the girls best interest at heart and will have given them a story near the truth but without laying blame. You can't shield them completely because it's everywhere around them. They may have had someone go into the new school before they started to talk to the other kids. They would need expert guidance to allow these precious girls not to lose their childhood along with their parents. It can't have been easy with the strain between the families. They deserve a medal. :loveyou:
crickey I hope so, they need to be kept fed and given a break surely, if it was me in there I would want a ciggie break that's for sure!
All quiet on the KateKyriacou tweets.