Gerard Baden Clay's murder appeal

[Fuskier]

FYI

Tessa Hardy ‏@TessaHardy9 7h7 hours ago
Just in: prosecutors have filed response to defence arguments in Gerard Baden-Clay's High Court case.

Tessa HardyVerified account @TessaHardy9
Court reporter, @9NewsBrisbane thardy@nine.com.au

The latest on the appeal over the downgrading of Gerard Baden-Clay's murder conviction. #9New

Prosecution has filed its reply in response to the Defense submissions ahead of the High Court Hearing.
Three possible outcomes: a finding of Manslaughter, a finding of Murder or a Re-trial.

High Court Hearing date: July 26th, 2016.

:waiting:

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...eply-in-baden-clay-appeal#ihegu2s3FjVi2Zfu.99

Qld DPP rejects Baden-Clay's defence
July 8th, 2016 5.26pm by AAP.

Prosecutors' final document was filed on Friday ahead of a hearing before the full bench of the High Court on July 26.

"It is not permissible after the conclusion of the trial to posit imaginary possibilities to explain an embarrassing death and then to assert these have not been addressed or excluded by the prosecution," the document states...

It was also not up to the jury to consider factual theories they were never told about, it says...

 

[PrimeSuspect]

RSBM

Defence respond to Gerard Baden-Clay's appeal

"The scratches to the face say something about the relationship between the deceased and (Baden-Clay) but nothing about intention," the submission said.

"They do not show who initiated violence."

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...pond-to-baden-clay-appeal#esyeIHWC5wDBIth2.99

http://www.9news.com.au/sitecore/co...28/11/06/defence-respond-to-baden-clay-appeal

I can't believe what I'm reading! Who initiated violence, implying Allison could have scratched the hell out of his face, then he killed her? So it was self-defense? Oh ffs!!
GBC defence team are a pitiful lot, so many excuses for a lying murderer.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...eply-in-baden-clay-appeal#ihegu2s3FjVi2Zfu.99

Qld DPP rejects Baden-Clay's defence
July 8th, 2016 5.26pm by AAP.

Prosecutors' final document was filed on Friday ahead of a hearing before the full bench of the High Court on July 26.

"It is not permissible after the conclusion of the trial to posit imaginary possibilities to explain an embarrassing death and then to assert these have not been addressed or excluded by the prosecution," the document states...

It was also not up to the jury to consider factual theories they were never told about, it says...

In Friday's submissions, prosecutors argue there was simply no "reasonable hypothesis consistent with unintentional killing" on the evidence at trial.

Exactly, so how can they appeal? Were they (his defence team) even in the courtroom?!!

 

[Fuskier]

FYI
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r/news-story/9c217682bb5a488762063804f63827a0

Wife killer did have a motive, says top lawyer
The Australian
12:00AM June 11, 2016 by Hedley Thomas, National Chief Correspondent, Brisbane.

One of the state’s most senior lawyers, former solicitor-general Walter Sofronoff QC, said in legal submissions filed yesterday ... said the Court of Appeal was wrong in concluding there was no evidence of a motive to kill...

... not only was there no evidence to support ‘a blow’ or ‘a fall hitting her head against a hard surface’ to compete with the prosecution case, (Baden-Clay) positively denied any such thing,” Mr Sofronoff stated.

Mr Sofronoff’s submissions state that, “on the evidence, the jury could conclude that, having killed his wife, (he) immediately engaged in a deliberate and calculated series of actions to shroud his involvement in her death and to deny police any knowledge of his motive to kill her....

 

[they'll get you]

Prosecutors to contest claim Gerard Baden-Clay unintentionally killed wife

In their final document filed ahead of that hearing, Queensland prosecutors accused the defence team of spinning "imaginary possibilities".

Baden-Clay's lawyers had argued there was no proof he intended to kill his wife Allison.. :floorlaugh:

"It is not permissible after the conclusion of the trial to posit imaginary possibilities to explain an embarrassing death and then to assert these have not been addressed or excluded by the prosecution," prosecution submissions, filed on Friday, stated.


Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...intentionally-killed-wife#eXyGzgHFOdWodeCT.99

 

[Fluffykins]

RSBM



I can't believe what I'm reading! Who initiated violence, implying Allison could have scratched the hell out of his face, then he killed her? So it was self-defense? Oh ffs!!
GBC defence team are a pitiful lot, so many excuses for a lying murderer.

The suggestion of Allison initiating violence, in light of her actually teaching Brookfield students resilience and social skills, is an absolute outrage.
It is the polar opposite of where she was coming from. It is in no way consistent with any previous behaviour of hers.
It makes me so angry.

 

[Couldbe]

FYI

Tessa Hardy ‏@TessaHardy9 7h7 hours ago
Just in: prosecutors have filed response to defence arguments in Gerard Baden-Clay's High Court case.

Tessa HardyVerified account @TessaHardy9
Court reporter, @9NewsBrisbane thardy@nine.com.au

The latest on the appeal over the downgrading of Gerard Baden-Clay's murder conviction. #9New

Prosecution has filed its reply in response to the Defense submissions ahead of the High Court Hearing.
Three possible outcomes: a finding of Manslaughter, a finding of Murder or a Re-trial.

High Court Hearing date: July 26th, 2016.

:waiting:

“ ……. Three possible outcomes: a finding of Manslaughter, a finding of Murder or a Re-trial.”

If the High Court Judges consider that Judge John Byrne made an error during his presiding over the Trial (as was earlier suggested) ….. but this has not been mentioned again now by the Defence in their Response to the DPP Appeal, I wonder if the High Court Judges would bring this in themselves and make a finding of a Re-trial?

 

[HoolyDooly]

I don't grasp why these insinuations were not raised prior by defence. Gob smacked. I fully concur Fluffikins.

 

[Couldbe]

In looking at what the Appeal Court Judges handed down and making some commets:
Appeal Court Judges Summary Notes
Appeal against Conviction – Murder
– where the appellant was convicted of murdering his wife – where three expert forensic witnesses gave evidence about a set of abrasions and scratches on the appellant’s cheek – where they considered that the abrasions were typical of injuries caused by fingernails, but were equivocal about the cause of the scratches –
– where two of the expert witnesses considered that the scratches were inflicted after the abrasions –
– where the appellant gave evidence that the abrasions and scratches were all caused by him shaving with a blunt razor blade –
– where the appellant argues that the trial judge erred in directing the jury that if the appellant had attempted to disguise the abrasions by placing shaving cuts near them, that conduct could support an inference of guilt of murder or manslaughter –
– where the trial judge gave an Edwards direction in respect of the use the jury could make of the appellant’s assertions that he had caused all his facial injuries while shaving, if they found them to be false; no issue was taken about that direction –
– where in addition, however, his Honour, over objection, directed the jury that if the appellant had attempted to disguise the abrasions by placing shaving cuts near them in an attempt to provide an innocent explanation for the injuries, that conduct could support an inference of guilt of murder or manslaughter –
– where it was open to the jury, after considering all the features of the injuries, to reach the conclusion that they had been inflicted separately, by different means and with the red scratches occasioned later –
– where that conclusion being open, the direction was properly given –

– where the deceased’s blood was found in a family vehicle and her body at a nearby creek –
– where the appellant argues that findings that the deceased’s blood was left in the vehicle at the time she disappeared and that he transported her body to the creek were indispensable intermediate steps in arriving at the conclusion that he had unlawfully killed her –
– where the trial judge declined to direct the jury that they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant transported the deceased’s body to the creek – where the trial judge was not asked to direct the jury that they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased’s blood was left in the vehicle at the time of her disappearance –
– where it was not necessary for the jury to reach any particular view about how the body arrived at the creek, although, of course, to find that it had been taken there by the appellant in the Captiva would certainly go to reinforce the conclusion of guilt –
– where there was no error in the trial judge’s direction so far as the standard of proof concerning the conveyance of Ms Baden-Clay’s body to Kholo Creek was concerned, and no omission in the directions relating to the bloodstain such as to give rise to any miscarriage of justice – where the appellant was convicted of murdering his wife –

where the appellant argues that the verdict was unreasonable because the jury could not properly have been satisfied of the necessary intent for murder –

(……. Why is focus only on these couple of pieces of evidence? What about other supporting evidence: Gerard took the Stand - Lies under Oath to deny ANY INVOLVEMENT AT ALL!
There was email to Toni McHugh saying he would be free to come to her in July; Claim submitted to Insurance on the day Allison’s body was found;
…….. Appearance of ‘smoke and mirrors’ in view of piecemeal focus without reverting to a collective view, which the Jury had the benefit of doing as they were there throughout Trial.)

where the appellant argues that a reasonably open hypothesis was that the deceased had scratched the appellant in the course of a physical confrontation; the appellant had killed her unintentionally; and his subsequent conduct was attributable to panic –

– where the respondent argues that intent to kill could be inferred from marks on the appellant’s face and body, lies told by the appellant about the cause of the abrasions on his face and his attempt to disguise them, the disposal of the deceased’s body at the creek, and emotional and financial pressures which might have caused the appellant to behave with uncharacteristic violence

– – whether the post-offence conduct was consistent with consciousness of a lesser offence – whether there was a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence of murder open on the evidence –
– where the critical question was whether it was also open to conclude that when the appellant caused his wife’s death he intended to do so, or at least to cause her grievous bodily harm

– – where it is important to note that the Crown did not at trial contend that the killing of Mrs Baden Clay was in any way premeditated or that the appellant might have been motivated by some benefit he stood to gain from his wife’s death

– – where there remained in this case a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence of murder: that there was a physical confrontation between the appellant and his wife in which he delivered a blow which killed her (for example, by the effects of a fall hitting her head against a hard surface) without intending to cause serious harm; and, in a state of panic and knowing that he had unlawfully killed her, he took her body to Kholo Creek in the hope that it would be washed away, while lying about the causes of the marks on his face which suggested conflict.

– Appeal against conviction allowed. Verdict of guilty set aside and a verdict of manslaughter is substituted. Procedural orders for filings in relation to sentencing submissions.

 

[Couldbe]

Link to source of Summary as in above post:
http://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCA/2015/265

 

[Fuskier]

FYI

High Court Hearing date: Tuesday 26th July 2016.

6 days to go!

:waiting:

 

[Couldbe]

(From Appeal Court Judges: “However, to say that equivocal circumstantial evidence is admissible for consideration in the context of the case as a whole is not to say that it can support a finding of intent for which there is no other evidentiary support.")

JMO (…. However it still remains open for the Jury to conclude that Gerard could have phoned for medical assistance (Ambulance) for his wife’s revival rather than his own pronouncement of her death;
then for him to just quickly decide to dispose of her body …. he took away any chance of her survival).

….. there could be validity in believing that his ‘intent’ (not panic or guilt) prevented him from exercising initiative in assisting Allison to continuing living;
why would he have not wanted Allison to continue living? There were a couple of advantages to be gained by him.

The Jury could then view other evidence, such as:- his email to Toni McHugh, his ‘bones of their arse' comment in relation to their debts, and his early claim for Allison’s insurance money as a Motive and Intention for her to die).

……. thereby eliminating ‘Manslaughter’ as being relevant.

(From Appeal Court Judges: “There were no signs of blood or disarrangement at the house and no convincing evidence of noise; suggesting that
there was no repeated infliction of injury and that whatever occurred was quick.
Postmortem examination did not identify any injury to the body which the appellant might
have been motivated to conceal. That may well have been due to decomposition; but
it can only be a matter of (impermissible) conjecture as to whether that was the case.&#8221

JMO ……….. this lack of evidence for ‘repeated infliction’ could indicate that blocking off her breathing passages with his hands and in effect causing smothering could well have occurred.
Following on from this, without any evidence to support an alternative scenario of Manslaughter, the Jury then concluded that is what took place.

The Jury having eliminated ‘Manslaughter’ then proceeded to examine the Prosecution’s ‘Murder by smothering’ and concluded that to be what had occurred.

 

[Flinders]

A huge thanks to CouldBe! You are a valuable poster to let us all be informed legally.
Just letting anyone know that "Crime Investigation Australia" on Foxtell has an episode about GBC I haven't watched it myself because it might have interviews with the Olivia and such saying ages ago that the through will come out.

 

[possumheart]

Oh, I have access to everything except Foxtel. It would just be another version of the dots that you good people have already connected.

A huge thanks to CouldBe! You are a valuable poster to let us all be informed legally.
Just letting anyone know that "Crime Investigation Australia" on Foxtell has an episode about GBC I haven't watched it myself because it might have interviews with the Olivia and such saying ages ago that the through will come out.

 

[sweetcaro]

I watched the Foxtel show, it was an episode on Crimes that shook Australia. The only thing that seemed new to me was in learning the biologist that gave plant testimony actually walked the 14km route to ensure his testimony was truly based on all possible available evidence. Otherwise it was all what we already knew.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

 

[~Shel~]

Hi all,

I read the book; and since then, I have read every thread here in the last 2 weeks lol. I have giggled at the granny pash, read alioops posts with great interest and even almost understand this appeal process.

And am am I right in that this gets heard on the 26th July? Like this Monday?

What I don't understand: GBC argues that it's possible that he didn't mean to kill ABC. But for love nor money, I can't find a single account of what HE says happened that night. I know the whole 'oh she went to bed' rubbish; but I'd have thought, if it really was manslaughter, even now, after all this time - where has he actually said 'oh look, I'm really sorry, I've found God and I feel so bad and I panicked - BUT HERES WHAT HAPPENED'.

He argues that there is not enough evidence to point to her being murdered by him; but there is nothing anywhere of him telling anyone the remote truth about what did happen? For that alone, it should stand as murder. It's YEARS now and still nothing.

my other question; whatever came of TM?

 

[Couldbe]

Hi Shel ….. JMO in offering an explanation:

First the Police considered that there was enough to charge Gerard of Murder;

A Committal was held in the District Court where it was found that there was enough evidence for him to be tried for the charge of Murder. The Matter was then referred to the Supreme Court for him to be tried;

The Trial was conducted, where both the Prosecution and the Defence put forward their evidence and questioned their Witnesses. Gerard himself took the stand and related his version and was questioned by the Prosecution; The scratches were explained away by Gerard, along with other explanations some of which related to the relationship between himself, his Wife and Toni McHugh; No admission at all was made which related to the cause of Allison’s death. (The Jury may have considered he told lies).

The Jury found him Guilty. And he was sentenced by the Judge on that day.

………. The evidence presented at the Trial is the only evidence that can be taken into account, and the Judge presided over the proceedings and guided the Jury ¬¬¬¬¬¬on their viewing of the evidence, and drawing their conclusions. The Appeal by the Defence which was successful in having the charge reduced to Manslaughter was the result of the Appeal Court Judges scrutinising to the best, of their ability, the content of the evidence and proceedings of the Trial.
They made an hypothesis as an example of what could have happened, as they concluded that Manslaughter should have been the outcome, as none of the evidence had proved beyond reasonable doubt that was any intention IF GERARD HAD, IN FACT, caused Allison’s death.
………... So, it all just relates to and is based PURELY on THE TRIAL AND THE EVIDENCE THEREIN
………... But, Gerard has NEVER ADMITTED TO ANYTHING, and no doubt still holds that view, and maintains that he left Allison watching TV on the couch when he went to bed at 10 pm and didn’t stir until morning to find her missing.

I don’t know what has happened to Toni McHugh.

Next Monday ……. The High Court today said it would examine the Gerard Baden-Clay appeal at a hearing in Brisbane on July 26. It was also reported in the Courier Mail “Legal figures have said while High Court decisions are usually reserved, there should be a resolution to the matter by the end of the year.”

 

[Fuskier]

FYI

High Court Hearing Date: Tuesday July 26, 2016.
4 days to go!
:waiting::

 

[BreakingNews]

FYI

High Court Hearing Date: Tuesday July 26, 2016.
4 days to go!
:waiting::

On the court list I read yesterday - google Queensland daily court list and go to High Court - said it was on 25th July. I thought it was the 26th also. Wonder if the public can sit in on this???