Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #39

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
At tomorrow's mention the magistrate will want to know if the prosecution has agreed with the defence's requests for cross examination of certain witnesses. If there is agreement then there will be no need for the defence to make an application to the court to be heard on the 20th Nov ( hope I got that date right as just from memory) so the magistrate can order that date be vacated or cancelled. Then all we need is for the committal date to be set.

Hopefully someone can go and report back.
 
Daisyinthedesert said:
I live in Perth and have followed the Rayney case with great interest as work in the legal industry (as did/do the Rayneys) and have friends and colleagues who knew/know them both. The general consensus IMO is that the evidence against LR while suspicious was circumstantial and not set in stone. The Police are also taking a hammering for various blunders of evidence and drama as far as the arrest went and inappropriate media briefings. That doesn't seem to be the case with GBC. This case appears IMO to have more solid evidence against GBC and GBC appears to be rather dim witted compared to LR. IMO. IMO.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that! I was starting to get a bit worried.
 
AAAA said:
But on the flip side a man in Ipswich (QLD) today got found guilty of murdering his wife and the reason? Wait for it... LIFE INSURANCE! GBC, start worrying! Sentenced to 20 years. Let's hope GBC gets the same judge!
Click to expand...

What a coincidence! How bizarre!
 
Nads said:
We know almost nothing about the prosecution's case really, imho. A lot of circumstantial stuff in both cases :(
Click to expand...


Yes that's very true. It's frustrating that it takes so long. I can only imagine how hard it must be for her family and friends.
 
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...agistrates-court/story-e6freoof-1226510045048

THE case against accused wife-killer Gerard Baden-Clay is set to return to the Brisbane Magistrates Court on Monday.

Prosecutor Danny Boyle asked for the further mention after disclosing lawyers would require some time to discuss which witnesses should be cross-examined because of a "voluminous'' brief of evidence.

The prosecution says there are 466 statements making up its full brief against Baden-Clay, including five key statements most recently presented to the defence.
 
Case against accused wife-killer Gerard Baden-Clay returns to Brisbane Magistrates Court, The Courier-Mail, November 05, 2012 1:00AM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226510045048
Baden-Clay's solicitor Darren Mahony ... had earlier said the witness list should be largely resolved by consent prior to the compiling of "quite detailed submissions".
 
Ashley McDermid‏@AshleyMcDermid

Court hears 473 witnesses in Baden-Clay murder case. Up to 35 of them may be cross-examined during committal hearing



Ashley McDermid‏@AshleyMcDermid

Correction: make that 45 witnesses. Crown has agreed to 35. Baden-Clay's lawyers want to grill another 10. @9NewsBrisbane
 
Curiousasacat said:
Ashley McDermid‏@AshleyMcDermid

Court hears 473 witnesses in Baden-Clay murder case. Up to 35 of them may be cross-examined during committal hearing



Ashley McDermid‏@AshleyMcDermid

Correction: make that 45 witnesses. Crown has agreed to 35. Baden-Clay's lawyers want to grill another 10. @9NewsBrisbane
Click to expand...



Wonder why A.McD wants an additional 10 that the Crown don't want. Wonder what their angle is.
 
BreakingNews said:
Wonder why A.McD wants an additional 10 that the Crown don't want. Wonder what their angle is.
Click to expand...

A.McD - assuming you mean Ashley McDermid - is the reporter for Channel 9.

The defence lawyer is Darren Mahoney.

And while Alioop is our verified legal brain, I suspect it's a case of the 45 being the "core" witnesses at the heart of the case, and the prosecution are only agreeing to 35 of those being cross-examined. Perhaps Alioop can tell us whether or not this cross-examination is before the trial - i.e. testing their statements in a closed session - or are they referring here to the trial itself? I'm not too clear on that point. Can't the defence cross-examine ALL witnesses that the prosecution present at the trial anyway? And vice versa?
 
www.couriermail.com.au
Hundreds of witnesses may be called in murder trial of Gerard Baden-Clay, accused of killing Allison Baden-Clay
by: Brooke Baskin From: The Courier-Mail November 05, 2012 10:18AM
Defence lawyer Darren Mahony told the court this morning he was seeking another week to finalise witnesses listed for cross-examination at a Committal Hearing, set down for November 26. "We need to resolve the scope in relation to around 20 of those 35," Mr Mahony said.
Crown prosecutor Danny Boyle was in agreement.
Mr Callaghan ordered the cross-examination of witnesses application has been listed for another Mention on November 12 at 9am.

Summary Court dates:
November 12, 2012 - Another Mention
November 20, 2012 - Cross Examination of Witnesses
November 26, 2012 - Committal Hearing.
 
"We need to resolve the scope [of questioning] in about 20 of those 35," Mr Mahony said.
He said he expected to receive further correspondence from prosecutors, relating to those witnesses, this afternoon and an agreement was likely to be reached later this week.

The case will return to court for another mention on November 12.

The hearing for the application to cross-examine witnesses has been tentatively set for November 20.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...3-witnesses-20121105-28t5c.html#ixzz2BJ0SKUZz
 
DrWatson said:
A.McD - assuming you mean Ashley McDermid - is the reporter for Channel 9.

The defence lawyer is Darren Mahoney.

And while Alioop is our verified legal brain, I suspect it's a case of the 45 being the "core" witnesses at the heart of the case, and the prosecution are only agreeing to 35 of those being cross-examined. Perhaps Alioop can tell us whether or not this cross-examination is before the trial - i.e. testing their statements in a closed session - or are they referring here to the trial itself? I'm not too clear on that point. Can't the defence cross-examine ALL witnesses that the prosecution present at the trial anyway? And vice versa?
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out my error.

Aren't they still talking about a committal here? It hasn't even been sent to trial yet? My understanding is that at the trial they can bring on every one of those hundreds of witnesses if the judge allows it.

As I've said many times before, this is soooooooooo drawn out.
 
Mention, mention, mention. Did I mention that our legal system is stuffed with all these mini court appearances. Someone is making money here, and it sure isn't the tax payers! Just thought I would mention this.
 
Where is a Verfied Criminal Lawyer when you need one? :)
 
BreakingNews said:
KG1, none of those links has anything.
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know. I have deleted the posts as you are correct - they are not working. It may be something to do with the digital content that the media are now increasing using - it is restricting a lot as you are expected to pay for everything. I posted the links the way I always do, so have no real explanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 117 more.
Total: 1,533 (members: 118, guests: 1,415)

Online statistics

Members online
118
Guests online
1,415
Total visitors
1,533
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,829
Messages
18,193,078
Members
233,578
Latest member
Hyacintha
Back
Top