GBC Trial General Discussion Thread #4

[they'll get you]

Happygolucky, I understand what you're saying. We've had a lot more time to pick this bits than the jury has. I'm not convinced the prosecution has proved it's case. We have had much more information to draw a conclusion from.

That's the problem in a nutshell.
I really don't think the jury is fully aware.

 

[Cattail]

Happygolucky, I understand what you're saying. We've had a lot more time to pick this bits than the jury has. I'm not convinced the prosecution has proved it's case. We have had much more information to draw a conclusion from.

I'm also not convinced. And puzzled at some of the things left out. I haven't followed as closely as most people here but the cross exam of GBC was the first I ever heard of missing pyjamas. Why wasn't more made of this? If the pyjamas the daughter said she was wearing were nowhere in the house it blows the story of the walk away completely.

I am hoping for a brilliant summing up.

 

[Couldbe]

Happygolucky, I understand what you're saying. We've had a lot more time to pick this bits than the jury has. I'm not convinced the prosecution has proved it's case. We have had much more information to draw a conclusion from.

BJsleuth and Happygolucky ....... so true; but I believe the very experienced Judge is far more experienced in dissecting evidence than I am; and I really am relying on his expertise and access to re-check the evidence heard in the Trial ...... IMO, Judge Byrne is more than astute.

 

[Thinking]

Over the course of this trial I have only posted occasionally until yesterday. Some of the questions I have been posting are "devils advocate" questions that I would be asking if I was a juror. I attended one day at committal when "those" damning photos were shown and the court room was silent in shock. I have read the summaries every day and lots of comments hear and elsewhere. I must admit I had a very disturbed night last night thinking about it and am very glad I am not on the jury. I am still mulling over in my head but although I believe GBC is probably guilty I am still of the opinion that I have reasonable doubt. And that resonable doubt includes my knowledge of statements made at committal and reading financial records etc. and stuff posted by "verified" insiders. There only has to be one other person like me on the jury and it is a hung jury. I believe GBC is a proven liar but not a proven murderer. I am still trying to sort out lists in my head for and against and believe it will take the jury many days of discussions to really get to the bottom of all the evidence and its relevance. They have had the benefit of being in court, seeing the house and the bridge etc. What finally did it for me (at this stage anyway) was Fullers hypothesis of how the murder took place. It just did not ring true with 3 girls sleeping in the house.

Thanks HGL for your thought provoking comments today. It is certainly a worry that there could be a hung jury in this matter. It is a huge problem that we have no real definition for "beyond reasonable doubt" and I think it ends up being a largely personal concept. As another WS member said recently, I think some people think the jury need to be convinced "beyond ALL doubt", that is,with hard, non-refutable evidence - but I don't think this is actually the case. I'm not sure if this article has been shared yet, but I found it quite interesting:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...e-define-reasonable-doubt-20120523-1z5o9.html

After reading this and considering what they jury have seen and heard (and granting that we haven't yet heard the great storytellers do their summing up ) - do you still think you would say "not guilty" as a juror? I have lost sleep about this too.

 

[Her Honour]

GBC was not given the opportunity to present his financial side properly. The jury have not been shown these, nor can they be used as part of the case. The fact that GBC was not a good financial manager, treated friends and business associates poorly, lied, cheated etc. does not make him a nice bloke but probably is not directly relevant to the case

With respect, I could not disagree more strongly.

GBC was given EVERY opportunity, both during evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, to elaborate on his financial situation. Against all the FACTS and with seemingly no basis for saying so, he maintained that things were on the up. What further, probative evidence could have been led on that point? I am not being facetious, rather, genuinely curious.

Secondly, it is certainly true that a liar doth not alone a murderer make. However, once you accept GBC's very persuasive statements that he is an unremitting, remorseless liar, where does that leave a Court in assessing his reliability as a witness? In civil cases at least, the testimony of such a witness is heavily, if not entirely, discounted.

 

[Fuskier]

Over the course of this trial I have only posted occasionally until yesterday. Some of the questions I have been posting are "devils advocate" questions that I would be asking if I was a juror. I attended one day at committal when "those" damning photos were shown and the court room was silent in shock. I have read the summaries every day and lots of comments hear and elsewhere. I must admit I had a very disturbed night last night thinking about it and am very glad I am not on the jury. I am still mulling over in my head but although I believe GBC is probably guilty I am still of the opinion that I have reasonable doubt. And that resonable doubt includes my knowledge of statements made at committal and reading financial records etc. and stuff posted by "verified" insiders. There only has to be one other person like me on the jury and it is a hung jury. I believe GBC is a proven liar but not a proven murderer. I am still trying to sort out lists in my head for and against and believe it will take the jury many days of discussions to really get to the bottom of all the evidence and its relevance. They have had the benefit of being in court, seeing the house and the bridge etc. What finally did it for me (at this stage anyway) was Fullers hypothesis of how the murder took place. It just did not ring true with 3 girls sleeping in the house.

BIB: Look again at the proximity of the master bedroom to the patio doors. Hypothetically, having suffocated her, it would be both quiet & easy to carry her body out those doors and place it on the patio, then change her clothing, thus getting leaves in her hair etc. It's well possible IMO. The children's bedrooms were at the other end of the house. GBC showed his awareness of 'noise' in that house and commented on lack of insulation in the walls. IMO this is the reason the patio was used because it was quiet, away from the girls bedrooms, hidden away from the front of the house, hidden away from neighbors. Only Scraps, the dog, knew that something was going on at the back of the BC house.

Remember we are talking about a murderer 'in-situ' with a murderous 'mind set' involving planning & calculation to execute this quickly, efficiently, with care not to wake those girls or attract unwanted attention from neighbours in the dead of night. The object of this exercise was that 'she just went missing', nobody saw anything, nobody heard anything, etc.

We may never know exact details, including whether Allison regained consciousness unexpectedly on the way to Kholo Creek and let out blood-curdling screams before she was finally overpowered and murdered. Hypothetically, this scenario may go some way towards explaining the screams heard near Rafting Ground Road area.

We WSleuthers are analyzing this case from written msm information, bail & committal documents and reported Court testimony which is permitted into the public domain. We don't have access to the entirety of the information available. We are not on the Prosecution Team and responsible to prove the case for murder. Much speculation of 'bits & pieces' of information we have gained here at WS has not been presented before the Court which to us may seem frustrating.

Upon reflection, the Prosecution may have selected from the many pieces of evidence available, only that evidence which would prove it's case for 'murder' and disposal at Kholo Creek. As we know the Jury only deliberates on evidence presented before the Court as directed by the Judge. We have not heard the closing arguments of the DT and the PT yet.

To us WS we have speculated that the alleged murderer had an accomplice or two and we question why this has not been tested in Court, why there aren't more charges, etc. Where "there is smoke, there is fire" regarding accomplice(s) and the Police investigated accomplice(s). It's possible they were not able to link the accomplice(s) to the murder at this stage.
My opinion only.

 

[ollijack]

Thankyou Her Honour
well said and totally agree
:yesss:

 

[Fluffykins]

Thanks HGL for your thought provoking comments today. It is certainly a worry that there could be a hung jury in this matter. It is a huge problem that we have no real definition for "beyond reasonable doubt" and I think it ends up being a largely personal concept. As another WS member said recently, I think some people think the jury need to be convinced "beyond ALL doubt", that is,with hard, non-refutable evidence - but I don't think this is actually the case. I'm not sure if this article has been shared yet, but I found it quite interesting:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...e-define-reasonable-doubt-20120523-1z5o9.html

After reading this and considering what they jury have seen and heard (and granting that we haven't yet heard the great storytellers do their summing up ) - do you still think you would say "not guilty" as a juror? I have lost sleep about this too.

Interesting reading, thank you!

"As a court reporter of many years, I sat through hundreds of jury trials and developed a knack for predicting the correct outcome, much of the time.

I can't say that was always based on the evidence. It tended to be a melange of the evidence, juror body language and a healthy dose of whether the defence or prosecution gave the best closing argument."

Oh how I would love to hear her opinion on the likely outcome for GBC!!

 

[Her Honour]

At the risk of repeating myself (apologies in advance), on the hot topic of the pyjamas:

1. GBC was asked, very clearly and several times before he directly answered, where they were. He said, firstly, not in the picture, then that he didn't know. The prosecution can't ask him another ten times until they get a different answer: the question is 'asked and answered' and his evidence (or version, if you prefer) is just that: he does not know where they were or are.
2. Had they been found, the Court would have heard about it.
3. GBC's evidence established that, even if he genuinely did know where they were, he did. not. look. for. them. Very relevant.

 

[they'll get you]

With respect, I could not disagree more strongly.

GBC was given EVERY opportunity, both during evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, to elaborate on his financial situation. Against all the FACTS and with seemingly no basis for saying so, he maintained that things were on the up. What further, probative evidence could have been led on that point? I am not being facetious, rather, genuinely curious.

Secondly, it is certainly true that a liar doth not alone a murderer make. However, once you accept GBC's very persuasive statements that he is an unremitting, remorseless liar, where does that leave a Court in assessing his reliability as a witness? In civil cases at least, the testimony of such a witness is heavily, if not entirely, discounted.

Thank you Her Honour you've given me some hope today.
When will we expect to know the full outcome?

 

[Cattail]

At the risk of repeating myself (apologies in advance), on the hot topic of the pyjamas:

1. GBC was asked, very clearly and several times before he directly answered, where they were. He said, firstly, not in the picture, then that he didn't know. The prosecution can't ask him another ten times until they get a different answer: the question is 'asked and answered' and his evidence (or version, if you prefer) is just that: he does not know where they were or are.
2. Had they been found, the Court would have heard about it.
3. GBC's evidence established that, even if he genuinely did know where they were, he did. not. look. for. them. Very relevant.

I would have liked also for the police to have testified that they searched the house for the pyjamas and did not find them. This would be much clearer to a jury than GBC simply not knowing.

 

[possumheart]

I have been around these traps for a long time.
We have to accept that the Jury might let him walk.
There is some comfort in knowing that he is generally mistrusted by the public.
I have no idea how his children would be affected. Or what support would be given to the a Dickies should it eventuate that he regains custody.

 

[Her Honour]

Thank you Her Honour you've given me some hope today.
When will we expect to know the full outcome?

I'd hope not to tread on Alioop's toes in answering, so my thoughts only, could be anywhere from five minutes to several days for a verdict once the jury retires. Really a piece of string thing.

Hang in there

 

[Tangled_Web]

At the risk of repeating myself (apologies in advance), on the hot topic of the pyjamas:

1. GBC was asked, very clearly and several times before he directly answered, where they were. He said, firstly, not in the picture, then that he didn't know. The prosecution can't ask him another ten times until they get a different answer: the question is 'asked and answered' and his evidence (or version, if you prefer) is just that: he does not know where they were or are.
2. Had they been found, the Court would have heard about it.
3. GBC's evidence established that, even if he genuinely did know where they were, he did. not. look. for. them. Very relevant.

I agree entirely. GBC's response told it all. It is VERY RELEVANT. I don't think there would be any point in pursuing the question with him further.
I have utmost faith in the prosecution team.

 

[Fuskier]

At the risk of repeating myself (apologies in advance), on the hot topic of the pyjamas:

1. GBC was asked, very clearly and several times before he directly answered, where they were. He said, firstly, not in the picture, then that he didn't know. The prosecution can't ask him another ten times until they get a different answer: the question is 'asked and answered' and his evidence (or version, if you prefer) is just that: he does not know where they were or are.
2. Had they been found, the Court would have heard about it.
3. GBC's evidence established that, even if he genuinely did know where they were, he did. not. look. for. them. Very relevant.

Her Honour: Very revealing that he didn't even look for them whereas one would, if your loved one went 'missing' without explanation, try to look for all the relevant pieces to the puzzle.

Thank you for contributing towards clear thinking on this thread. Appreciate your posts. Question: 'Will the Jury see it as clearly?'
Hopefully the Prosecution will include this in their closing argument and the Judge may give some direction re evidence. My opinion only.

 

[Couldbe]

With respect, I could not disagree more strongly.

GBC was given EVERY opportunity, both during evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, to elaborate on his financial situation. Against all the FACTS and with seemingly no basis for saying so, he maintained that things were on the up. What further, probative evidence could have been led on that point? I am not being facetious, rather, genuinely curious.

Secondly, it is certainly true that a liar doth not alone a murderer make. However, once you accept GBC's very persuasive statements that he is an unremitting, remorseless liar, where does that leave a Court in assessing his reliability as a witness? In civil cases at least, the testimony of such a witness is heavily, if not entirely, discounted.

..... in his own words to the Court, GBC stated that TM's belief that he and she could have a life living together, was in her very own perception .... even though he was telling her the opposite (lying to her for the good of the Real Estate business, and later to placate her).

When he is now making statements for the sake of his own life (not to be found Guilty) .... it is definitely questionable whether 'swearing on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' would make any difference to his continuing to telling lies for the sake of him being found Guilty.
A waste of his and everbody's time taking the stand ...... unless he could have revealed something useful ....... that was previously unknown.
IMO, there was nothing new in his evidence .... only confirmed what was already known.
...... and now what the Judge, Jury, Legal Teams and Others think is still in our own perception.
....and he never need believe any different!!!

 

[Happygolucky]

BJsleuth and Happygolucky ....... so true; but I believe the very experienced Judge is far more experienced in dissecting evidence than I am; and I really am relying on his expertise and access to re-check the evidence heard in the Trial ...... IMO, Judge Byrne is more than astute.

But he can only sum up on the evidence presented. He cannot allude to other evidence in his summing up. The onus was on the prosecution to present the evidence and prove the point.

 

[BJsleuth]

BJsleuth and Happygolucky ....... so true; but I believe the very experienced Judge is far more experienced in dissecting evidence than I am; and I really am relying on his expertise and access to re-check the evidence heard in the Trial ...... IMO, Judge Byrne is more than astute.

I am a bit disappointed that the evidence that was heard at the bail hearing wasn't included. I think it would have made a stronger case. You're right about the judge though.

 

[alioop]

I'd hope not to tread on Alioop's toes in answering, so my thoughts only, could be anywhere from five minutes to several days for a verdict once the jury retires. Really a piece of string thing.

Hang in there

No probs Herhonour, I have tough toes and am not a criminal lawyer so I am happy for any assistance!

 

[jens]

When I have doubts about GBC being guilty I just have to remember the scratches on his face. Conclusive evidence, no matter what he says.