... we keep on searching to understand how the Law has functioned in this case; also to understand how it could happen that we have the differences between this very experienced Senior Trial Judge and the Appeal Judges, and where this case will go next, and why.
We were told that Judge Byrne did not err in presiding over the case!
I know we need to be able to trust the wheels of the judicial process will turn to serve us well but in this case, we are struggling to accept that there is still not some wrong that needs to be put right.
Respectfully pruned by me to just this point because I hope, among all the upset I'm feeling about this disgraceful appeal court decision, that I can put together a rational argument here.
It's this: I think what we are having difficulty with is that it seems the appeal court judges have fixated on the
letter of the law, without regard to the
spirit of the law or to the
community standards behind the law.
They have
stretched their interpretation of Allison's death to envisage an alternate possibility to the finding of murder which was made by a properly instructed jury; an alternate possibility where her death
might have been the result of an accidental push or shove.
They have
stretched their interpretation of the scratches on his face to envisage a possibility where the woman, who subsequently lost her life, inflicted those scratches in an unreasonable attack upon her killer, rather than inflicting them while desperately fighting for her life.
They have
stretched their interpretation of his reaction to having possibly caused his wife to lose consciousness, to envisage it being somehow within the realm of normal behaviour that he would assume he had caused her death, rather than hoping, and acting in the hope, that he had only caused her to lose consciousness.
They have
stretched their interpretation of his reaction to the injury he inflicted upon his wife to envisage that even though he didn't necessarily intend to harm her, and even though she may have only been unconscious, still no evidence of intent to murder can be deduced from his subsequent actions in dragging her dead or unconscious body outside and loading it into a car which he drove to a concealed location where he dumped it,
even though he at all times had the option to call an ambulance, like any person who had unintentionally inflicted an injury, innocent of any murderous intent, would have done.
They have
stretched their interpretation of his implied intent to murder Allison - when he promised his lover that he would be free of his marriage on a certain date - to envisage that statement as merely idle talk,
even though that promise was carried out when he said it would be.
Time after time after time, in the consideration of every one of these points, they have allowed for the most far-fetched, the most
unlikely interpretation of those points. In doing so, they have utterly failed to consider that the evidence of a circumstantial case should be allowed to build a scenario; a scenario that any reasonable person could deduce from considering
all the evidence put together.
I’m sorry I can’t go on and make more points I’d like to make, but it’s late and I’m tired. And angry; so very angry.