Ok, so there's been a bit of discussion about GBC's barrister who seems to be... Well...pretty determined for lack of a better word. How do the prosecution "barristers" (if that's what they are called) in qld measure up? Are they sharp? Are they equally as aggressive? How successful do they tend to be? I realize we don't even have anyone charged yet so don't even know who will control this case but interested in the process in a general sense nonetheless. I hope they have a talented, aggressive pit bull that will bury the murderer.
Yes - and that we're only meant to be discussing things that can be verified by media and other available reference sources, and our analysis of same.
Why would you want to talk about a trailer? What difference would it make? what's the point?
I think everyone else has referred to that as the granny pash. It's not quite necrophilia, but not far off.
I hope they have a talented, aggressive pit bull that will bury the murderer.
Does anyone think they labs were able to get samples of any skin left under the nails of the deceased (assuming there was a struggle and ABC say scratched the perpetrator(s)) and do a match with some of the DNA taken from any suspect?
I think everyone else has referred to that as the granny pash. It's not quite necrophilia, but not far off.
that would only prove they had a fight
I wish we could just have crappy nothing islands in the middle of nowhere to send these people...
Lol they did. Called Australia.
Um, then you're having micro naps between posts. There was previous discussion on this subject. That's the pivotal moment that I realised whatever is claimed here, particularly by the supposed 'locals', I take zero notice of. There's been nothing of substance since about the second thread.
Is there high unemployment in QLD or something? Some people have far too much time on their hands.:floorlaugh:
Yes, but it could still be helpful in conjunction with other evidence.
Trailer ... Hmmmm ?
Begs the question whether Tomkat or Brangelina were recently spotted in Brookefield as possible accomplices rather than Nigelaine.
My other question is - what "evidence" would have needed to be got rid of in industrial bins, or any bins?
The best Crown prosecutors are a match for any members of the private bar practicing crime in Queensland. Some complex matters are briefed out to private barristers and in a matter like this it would go to one of a handful of the best. No advantage to Mr Baden Clay if there is a trial in terms of quality of lawyers. The advantages are all to the prosecution who have far greater resources.
As to how people can afford expensive legal representation. The solicitor would require that the client place an initial sum of money into his trust account, and monthly invoices will be drawn against this. The barrister will also require this. The barrister is paid by the solicitor, not directly by the client. In many cases the client will not have the cash needed and so will mortgage a property that they own to cover it. The solicitor may then be the mortgage holder or it may be done through a bank. If the client is subsequently acquited then the fees paid for their defence are not recoverable from the State. People (and their relatives/friends) quite often lose their homes after successfully defending criminal charges. Legal aid is very difficult to obtain due to the relevant means tests. If you are going to mortgage your home, or ask your relatives to, in order to defend yourself then you might as well use the money to get the best you can afford, since the money will not be recouped.
As to lawyers dealing with clients who make admissions or confessions but who want to plead not guilty. The lawyer must inform the client that the lawyer is unable to say anything in court which is inconsistent with what the client has said. They cannot, for instance, assert that the client was not present at the time of the offence, suggest to eye-witnesses that they are mistaken or suggest to the jury some other version of events other than what the client has told them. They can only put the Crown to proof and suggest to the jury that the Crown has not met this evidentiary burden. That is sometimes effective where the Crown case is largely circumstantial. If the client insists on giving oral evidence in court then the lawyer cannot allow the client to say anything under oath which is inconsistent with the confession made. If the client does this, regardless, then the lawyer must withdraw from the matter, without telling the court why. The judge will of course realise what is going on.
Barristers do not generally have the option of refusing, or withdrawing from, a case because they dislike or disapprove of a client. The cab rank rule requires them to accept a brief where the matter is within their expertise and they have the time. Criticising barristers for complying with their ethical responsibilities is pointless. Outside many court buildings you will see a statue of a lady with a blindfold holding scales. Themis represents justice being blind. Meaning that cases are decided on the evidence, not on personal feelings, hunches, biases or community outrage. If a prosecution fails it is either because the accused was indeed innocent, or the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or the prosecution was incompetent. The idea of some clever barrister getting a person off is a myth. There are no secret arguments or rules to find. Witnesses may not be tricked. But defective evidence and insufficient procedural work can and should be identified by a competent lawyer.
It appears we know a lot less than we thought, now we discover GBC hasn't even given the police a statement. No wonder the police were so suspicious, even more so if a lawyer was present. What if NBC was also there?
If GBC killed Alison I think he is more like to have rung his father, and asked him to come to the house not meet him at a roundabout, and doubt if he would have told his father by phone what the emergency actually was. it would certainly be easier to dispose of a body with two people.
If there was an accomplice I see NBC as a better option than your lover.
I can't see a trailer being used, when you could wrap a body and easily fit it in a 4WD. Would be a lot harder trying to find somewhere to dump a body, when you had to be able to drive a car with trailer into dumping place.
Was something actually SEEN at roundabout or was something FOUND?
Any thoughts on what this could be?
I can see the first solicitor saying to GBC, we won't need to hire a barrister
UNLESS Alison's body is found, well what do you know....
I guess GBC could have told first solicitor the truth, seeing he is no longer acting for him, I can't see that it would compromise him.