Just came across this Tweet from approx. 1 hour ago from Ava Benny Morrison, Crime Reporter at the Sydney Morning Herald (see https://twitter.com/avabmorrison). "Eight volumes of the brief served in the Daniel Holdom case. But that's only 30% of the entire brief of evidence. Adjourned to March". Grrrr. Was hoping they were going to nail him today
Wow! Sounds like they have LOTS of evidence. That's a good thing.
But clearly nothing compelling enough to convict him.
I think this is all very odd. The prosecution has 8 volumes of material yet the defence team has not yet been given everything.
It may be tempting to think this is just extreme incompetence, but I think not.
The bodies are buried. Any post mortem information is done.
There is some reason both sides are content to delay as long as they can and they must know Holdom is going to plead not guilty.
But clearly nothing compelling enough to convict him.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-28/daniel-holdom-appears-in-court-via-video-link/7119774
Prosecutors told a Sydney court on Thursday that in addition to Khandalyce's post-mortem examination, a number of witness statements and forensic analysis of computer items, were still yet to be handed to the defence.
Wonder who the computer items belong to?
Perhaps they do. I certainly hope so, but the defence is blocking at this stage. Perhaps they are looking for other scapegoats, or the old 'diminished responsibility'.
This is no different to a lot of other cases. Things take time and there is a long way to go yet.... :moo:
Have look at some other threads on here same ,same....
Hmm, I am not at a.l sure about that. Plenty of cases go to court and the accussed walks free after a trial and found not guilty.If there was nothing to convict him they wouldn't be in court.
Hmm, I am not at a.l sure about that. Plenty of cases go to court and the accussed walks free after a trial and found not guilty.
The point is, if there was just one irrefutable piece of evidence that would convict him, they would have presented that to the defence by now.
They volumes of evidence and statements actually indicates a weak case, not a strong one.
"At the mention you can plead guilty, not guilty or ask for an adjournment to seek legal advice."
http://nswcourts.com.au/articles/what-are-the-different-stages-of-an-average-court-case/
The critical point I am making is this - if Holdom was going to plead guilty, he would have.
He is not going to plead guilty.
He may or may not actually be guilty; I have a completely open mind about that.
But if he definitely IS guilty then his legal representative would have advised him to plead guilty by this point.
Anyway, we won't hear any more now for a very long time.