willough
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,178
- Reaction score
- 0
It does make one wonder what direction their moral compass is heading, when they know they are helping some very nasty pieces of work. :banghead:
ARREST!!! Australia - Allison Baden-Clay, Brisbane QLD, 19 April 2012 -#23
- Thread starter SoSueMe
- Start date
- Status
It does make one wonder what direction their moral compass is heading, when they know they are helping some very nasty pieces of work. :banghead:
Greg
New Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 480
- Reaction score
- 0
The phone ... it's obvious....he would turn it off!!......Sigh.....
and the phone went flying...hence no one can find the phone!!.....Sigh....
and then she got crash tackled by the stalker....Sigh...
then the random DUI driver hit her.....Sigh...
The police are too arrogant to listen to me.....Sigh...
then I got committed......Sigh.....
marlywings
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,282
- Reaction score
- 144
Peter Davis SC
Notable cases and matters include R v Fletcher [1998] 2 QdR 437 (the first significant DNA based case in Queensland);
http://www.crimlaw2010.com/highlights.asp?PeterDavisSC
Wakesksate, I agree about seeing the "right person convicted" and that sometimes they do make mistakes in this area. It is probably inevitable over the course of many convictions that sometimes the innocent are pronounced guilty and also that the guilty get off.
However, I don't believe that someone would have been arrested if they were only a suspect. I believe that the police would only arrest and charge someone who they strongly believe, as a result of their investigations, was the perpetrator. I am obviously no expert and could be wrong in my understanding of the system though. In one of the media reports......and I don't know how to link.....they said that there have been a few occasions that they have planned to arrest him but they delayed the process to gather more evidence to just make double sure to try and avoid the possibility of charging an innocent man with murder (and to avoid the serious ramifications that has, not only to the man himself, but also to his dear children and the wider family).
Having said all of this, over the course of time new evidence could potentially emerge that demonstrated that someone was innocent or proved a different person to be the perpetrator which would obviously change things.
I was heartened to hear that the police where trying to make double sure before they made an arrest. The thought of an innocent man being charged with murdering his wife is quite distressing to me...especially for the sake of the children and the family as well. In saying this I am not assuming that an arrested man is definitely guilty......that is for the courts to determine....and as Hawkins said many threads ago...........no one is ever likely to know the whole TRUTH anyway except the actual perpetrator!
One question that I do have though is:
Early in the piece Mr Ainsworth said that GBC wasn't a person of interest anymore and then it changed to no comment. If that is the case why is the indication now that they have known for a long time who did it and were going to arrest him a few times but then delayed it? Did they initially not think that it was him? How long have they known for sure that it was him?
Obviously these thoughts are just my own opinions and questions as we wait for the workings of justice for Allison.
marlywings
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,282
- Reaction score
- 144
OR maybe a hair belonging to someone else was found on the clothes Allison's body was found in??
TheStupidTree
Active Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 104
I can offer this tidbit. When my ex and I went to family court his costs with a lawyer and barrister were over $300,000. The barrister alone was $10,000 a day! This is for family court tho, criminal court might be different. Luckily for me we paid our own costs.
The following info posted by HAWKINS post no: 78 on a previous thread is informative:
One the trial starts the media will report on each day's proceedings. The judge is unlikely to issue a non publication direction because of the strong public interest element. Papers will disable the reader comment function for fear of sub judice contempt charges. What the owners of Internet fora do is their call. Posters make their comments but the owners will know that a trial is under way and have obligations. The sub judice period generally commences with the drawing if the indictment (charge). The rationale is to limit influence on proceedings outside of the admissible evidence. I suspect forum owners will advise about posting policies based on advice from their legal advisors.
One the trial starts the media will report on each day's proceedings. The judge is unlikely to issue a non publication direction because of the strong public interest element. Papers will disable the reader comment function for fear of sub judice contempt charges. What the owners of Internet fora do is their call. Posters make their comments but the owners will know that a trial is under way and have obligations. The sub judice period generally commences with the drawing if the indictment (charge). The rationale is to limit influence on proceedings outside of the admissible evidence. I suspect forum owners will advise about posting policies based on advice from their legal advisors.
Thanks for your post pugsandfrogs. What exactly do you mean by "Discovery"? Thanks....just curious!
minni
Former Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,777
- Reaction score
- -1
Thanks , I just had a look at the Lacey Brother's case. Their multimillionaire father has declared bankrupt after battling legal costs.
http://http://www.news.com.au/laceys-cry-poor-after-riches-sour/story-e6freoof-1226296476999
bearbear
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,612
- Reaction score
- 16,142
the hair could also have come off the cape she would have worn at the hair salon to protect her clothes, probably unlikely though if she had changed clothes or showered etc. and if she had her hair coloured it would make it a little easier for forensics if they found the newly coloured hair in inappropriate places, like the back of the car etc.
This information was posted by HAWKINS post no: 212. Someone was asking about differences between murder and manslaughter trials and the consequences. A manslaughter charge is usually chosen where there is strong evidence that the accused caused the other person's death but there is not enough admissible evidence to ensure good prospects of success. There are basically two forms of murder recognised in Qld.
The first is where the accused intended to inflcit serious or fatal injuries on some other person, and as a result of that intention somebody in fact died. That's the usual form you see reported, whete the accused set out to attack someone. That's provided for in s302(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The other form of murder is where the accused was involved in carrying out some other sort of crime, such as a burglary, rape or armed robbery and while doing that they do something which causes another person's death. They might, for example, be carrying out a servo robbery and fire a warning shot which ricochets off a wall and hits the attendant in the head, killing him. You can find that in s.302(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Another example could be an assailant who drugs a woman to overcome resistance so that he can rape her, and she dies as a result of the drug (by interacting with a prescription she is taking say). In that latter situation he didn't intend any serious injury but he was committing a crime (rape) did something dangerous and as a result she died.
Lots of different scenarios posters have suggested on the forum could ground any of the above charges.
Sometimes the DPP will negotiate with the defence for a plea of guilty to manslaughter in exchange for not pursuing the murder charge. Even if a murder trial goes ahead the accused can be acquitted of the murder but convicted of manslaughter by the jury, after the judge sums up for them.
Murder is the more serious charge, but manslaughter can actually result in as many years behind bars. The Corrective Services Act says that a prisoner convicted of murder is eligible to apply for parole after serving 15 years of their 'mandatory' life sentence. Many such people do in fact get parole at that time.
There is a maximum (non mandatory) sentence of life imprisonment for manslaughter. But, crucially, it is classified as a Serious Violent Offence in the Penalties and Sentences Act, which means that the prisoner must serve at least 80% of their sentence or 15 years before being eligible to apply for parole (whichever is the shorter). So a 20 year sentence for manslaughter has almost the same effect. The court can also specify a later parole eligibility date.
Sentences for non murder offences that severe are rare, but not unheard of. It's also possible for the court to impose an indefinite sentence in which the offender has no parole eligibility date, but is assessed by a tribunal as to the risk they pose to the community at various stages. We have a few such prisoners in Qld. They are usually violent, serial rapists.
Many manslaughter convictions grounded in DV contexts seem to attract a maximum of about 10 years. If that were the sentence, the offender would be eligible to apply for parole after 8 years, with the serious violent offender declaration. It would be tempting to think that where a person is also convicted of additional offences arising from the same events, such as interfering with a corpse etc, that a conviction for those offences would increase the overall sentence. But virtually all prosecutions which result in convictions for multiple offences lead to sentences which are served concurrently, meaning that the offender serves the time for the most serious offence and is deemed to be also serving the other sentences at the same time.
The first is where the accused intended to inflcit serious or fatal injuries on some other person, and as a result of that intention somebody in fact died. That's the usual form you see reported, whete the accused set out to attack someone. That's provided for in s302(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The other form of murder is where the accused was involved in carrying out some other sort of crime, such as a burglary, rape or armed robbery and while doing that they do something which causes another person's death. They might, for example, be carrying out a servo robbery and fire a warning shot which ricochets off a wall and hits the attendant in the head, killing him. You can find that in s.302(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Another example could be an assailant who drugs a woman to overcome resistance so that he can rape her, and she dies as a result of the drug (by interacting with a prescription she is taking say). In that latter situation he didn't intend any serious injury but he was committing a crime (rape) did something dangerous and as a result she died.
Lots of different scenarios posters have suggested on the forum could ground any of the above charges.
Sometimes the DPP will negotiate with the defence for a plea of guilty to manslaughter in exchange for not pursuing the murder charge. Even if a murder trial goes ahead the accused can be acquitted of the murder but convicted of manslaughter by the jury, after the judge sums up for them.
Murder is the more serious charge, but manslaughter can actually result in as many years behind bars. The Corrective Services Act says that a prisoner convicted of murder is eligible to apply for parole after serving 15 years of their 'mandatory' life sentence. Many such people do in fact get parole at that time.
There is a maximum (non mandatory) sentence of life imprisonment for manslaughter. But, crucially, it is classified as a Serious Violent Offence in the Penalties and Sentences Act, which means that the prisoner must serve at least 80% of their sentence or 15 years before being eligible to apply for parole (whichever is the shorter). So a 20 year sentence for manslaughter has almost the same effect. The court can also specify a later parole eligibility date.
Sentences for non murder offences that severe are rare, but not unheard of. It's also possible for the court to impose an indefinite sentence in which the offender has no parole eligibility date, but is assessed by a tribunal as to the risk they pose to the community at various stages. We have a few such prisoners in Qld. They are usually violent, serial rapists.
Many manslaughter convictions grounded in DV contexts seem to attract a maximum of about 10 years. If that were the sentence, the offender would be eligible to apply for parole after 8 years, with the serious violent offender declaration. It would be tempting to think that where a person is also convicted of additional offences arising from the same events, such as interfering with a corpse etc, that a conviction for those offences would increase the overall sentence. But virtually all prosecutions which result in convictions for multiple offences lead to sentences which are served concurrently, meaning that the offender serves the time for the most serious offence and is deemed to be also serving the other sentences at the same time.
willough
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,178
- Reaction score
- 0
The thought (post) just sickened me :anguish:
willough
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,178
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe they are frightened a bunch of sleuthers will throw tomatoes... :what:
This was posted by HAWKINS post no: 214.Investigators and defence lawyers have a lot to work on apart from trial considerations. They need to collect all sorts of material relevant to sentencing if there is to be a manslaughter trial or conviction in addition to all the trial preparation. If there is an arrest I would not expect a trial for at least a year, probably more. If the accused is on remand for that period and is convicted of manslaughter, that year would be considered part of their eventual sentence if convicted. A bail application hearing in this matter woud be a big deal and would involve some high powered legal and evidentiary argument.
UnfoldingTruth
Active Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 1,985
- Reaction score
- 0
I am by no means an expert on DNA, but I don't think they need hair samples in particular to match relatives DNA. That can be done with any method of DNA retrieval.
I do not know why it was ordered to be DNA from a non intimate(no body orifice) source.. there is obviously a reason, but I am thinking it has more to do with procedure and something to do with accused liberty??(although mouth should not cause and issue with this)..I am guessing on this though.
- Status