The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 2nd July - Trial Day 14, Week 3

[JCB]

Why doesn't GBC just plead guilty? This would enable him to work through his feelings and attempt to move forward and out of his denial.

I think I can safely say that every single person in this thread wants to see people capable of taking the life of another human being put away, and put away for a very long time.

However I've long been an advocate for the abolition of mandatory life sentencing of those convicted of murder. As it stands now, murder is the only crime in the state of Queensland where concession cannot be given to the defendant making a timely plea of guilt. It doesn't matter, who, what, where, how or why, most people will receive the mandatory penalty of life in prison with a non parole period of 20 years (up from 15 recently, and this is of course discounting multiple murders and murderers with a relevant criminal history).

Therefore there is no incentive for a murder to plead guilty, particularly one who believes he has even the slimmest of hopes at trial. So many traumatised people are dragged unnecessarily through the judicial process and for what, to pound our chests and proclaim "we have the toughest sentences for murder in the country"?

At the mandatory 15 year non parole period there was little incentive in terms of case law (pretty much everyone got the same penalty, contested or not) and with it upped to 20 years it's only going to make it worse. Given GBC was in real estate which requires criminal checks I can only assume that he doesn't have a particularly murky past and on that basis he is almost certainly going to get a 20 year minimum whether he pleads or contests, so from his point of view he may as well roll the dice.

I think that some (small) concessions could/should be made for those who do plead guilty to murder at an early stage and who save family, friends and witnesses from recounting undoubtedly the most most horrific period in their lives.

 

[catswhiskers]

Sorry, but am too tired to go back over posts for today, but first up in court today was judge talking about note GBC gave to ballif to give to the jury. Ballif didn't and gave it to judge. GBC had done this without his lawyers knowing. His lawyers took him aside to 'discuss' then court resumed and jury was called back in. OMG, what was on that note??? Was it his business card??? Was it an invitation to a female juror to meet up??? Or did he simply tell them all that he loved them and it was business as usual.

Whaat? First I have heard of this...

 

[kiwijayne]

Moderators a question? After the case is finished does it then become ok to discuss further ie rumours etc?

 

[laserdisc10]

Hi LB1,

I can't say I am an 'expert' in narcissism or much else for that matter. What I can say is that I have worked in Forensic psychiatry for ten years. I spent a year at a prison where my role with my team was to screen and assess every prisoner that came into custody for mental illness. Needless to say that I have met and assessed a fair number of high profile cases.

For the most part, I work in a high secure forensic hospital for offenders found not guilty due to mental impairment. It is in this work that I have come across the difficulties that working with narcissists.

As I said, I am no 'expert' but do have considerable experience of how they operate from a clinical perspective. NIGHTMARES

Clinical teams usually need group supervision to keep the team from falling apart as they are masterful at splitting teams by playing one off against the other. I could go on for hours.

My post earlier was to point out that their grandiose and self assured exterior hides a deep self loathing. Gerard knows he is a FAILURE and continually screws things up. This would eat away at him.

Thankfully I don't work in QLD. There is no way I would even post on this topic if I worked in QLD.

Let's hope justice for Allison is delivered next week. I am quietly confident as I think the evidence- blood, scratches, motive etc to me are the clinchers. I can only imagine what those women on the jury think of him- and the men. He is the type of character that is repulsive when his life is presented in such a clinical manner.

This is what they do. I liken it to the hub of a wheel. Narcissist occupies the hub (or centre). Then the narcissist positions everyone at the end of each spoke, around the rim of the wheel. Then they isolate everyone, stuck out there on the end of the spokes

The narcissist pretends to be best-friend and advisor to each individual stuck out there at the end of each spoke

Those stuck in isolation out there on the individual spokes are then told by the narcissist that no-one else likes them - that everyone else hates them - that everyone laughs at them, mocks them

All those stuck out in isolation at the end of each spoke turns to the narcissist for comfort. They believe the narcissist is their only true friend

and the narcissist is playing the same game with all of them

The narcissist forbids them to speak with the others

Total control, sitting there like a black widow spider at the centre, controlling and destroying everyone and loving ever moment of it

 

[alioop]

I think he has many different looks and it's hard to reconcile them. For eg I think The photo of him at the cross country with the red eye, is a normal reasonably good looking man, dodgy eye aside.
I think he was relaxed, enjoying hanging out with his sister and watching the girls. He wasn't playing a role of selling anything or being sleezy.

Other photos he looks hard to me.

 

[marlywings]

Moderators a question? After the case is finished does it then become ok to discuss further ie rumours etc?

Afraid not! WS doesn't allow rumours at all.

 

[Neuromancer]

Thank you for the kind words

[...]

I don't believe GBC's evidence was particularly damning or helpful to either party. By this point in the trial the jury would have known him to be manipulative, dishonest and deceitful when the need arose. Fuller QC certainly hammered that point home but in general juries tend to be turned off by aggressive lines of questioning that have already been largely addressed. Trying to put myself in the shoes of a juror, I'd be thinking something along the lines of "Yeah, this dude's a creep but that's all the prosecutor banged on about, if he is guilty why wasn't he able to elicit something that contradicted the earlier evidence"?

My impression was that one of Fuller's main goals was to demonstrate for the jury the nasty side of GBC and how easily it could be brought out, to show them that this person was capable of the crime.

Prior to that there was a chance they could fall for his sooky-la-la act and think - ok the guy's a twit and terrible bore, but is he capable of murder?

 

[Trooper]

Moderators a question? After the case is finished does it then become ok to discuss further ie rumours etc?

oh please let it be so, KJ.. lease:lease:lease:

 

[Susan12]

Can anyone say anything about what the unpublished legal arguments have been about in court? It sounds like about the mr mum blog and perhaps the charges and whether more can be added? Is that right? So curious, if anyone can say anything <modsnip> I'd be keen to know!

 

[kiwijayne]

Afraid not! WS doesn't allow rumours at all.

Awww shucks thanks MW

 

[Snails]

Sorry, but am too tired to go back over posts for today, but first up in court today was judge talking about note GBC gave to ballif to give to the jury. Ballif didn't and gave it to judge. GBC had done this without his lawyers knowing. His lawyers took him aside to 'discuss' then court resumed and jury was called back in. OMG, what was on that note??? Was it his business card??? Was it an invitation to a female juror to meet up??? Or did he simply tell them all that he loved them and it was business as usual.

Is that for real? Dear oh dear. I am gobsmacked.

 

[alioop]

I think I can safely say that every single person in this thread wants to see people capable of taking the life of another human being put away, and put away for a very long time.

However I've long been an advocate for the abolition of mandatory life sentencing of those convicted of murder. As it stands now, murder is the only crime in the state of Queensland where concession cannot be given to the defendant making a timely plea of guilt. It doesn't matter, who, what, where, how or why, most people will receive the mandatory penalty of life in prison with a non parole period of 20 years (up from 15 recently, and this is of course discounting multiple murders and murderers with a relevant criminal history).

Therefore there is no incentive for a murder to plead guilty, particularly one who believes he has even the slimmest of hopes at trial. So many traumatised people are dragged unnecessarily through the judicial process and for what, to pound our chests and proclaim "we have the toughest sentences for murder in the country"?

At the mandatory 15 year non parole period there was little incentive in terms of case law (pretty much everyone got the same penalty, contested or not) and with it upped to 20 years it's only going to make it worse. Given GBC was in real estate which requires criminal checks I can only assume that he doesn't have a particularly murky past and on that basis he is almost certainly going to get a 20 year minimum whether he pleads or contests, so from his point of view he may as well roll the dice.

I think that some (small) concessions could/should be made for those who do plead guilty to murder at an early stage and who save family, friends and witnesses from recounting undoubtedly the most most horrific period in their lives.

I just wanted to comment by saying that the 15 yrs applies to GBC if found guilty as the increase to 20 yrs occurred after Allison was killed.

 

[JK673]

oh please let it be so, KJ.. lease:lease:lease:

If you are a Brisbanite - join the WS Brisbanites at Indro Maccas after the verdict.... LOL Lots of discussion I will be had I think

 

[Trooper]

Afraid not! WS doesn't allow rumours at all.

:boohoo::tears::sigh::silenced:

 

[alioop]

The note to the jury, likely said, "I did not kill my wife"! Something very wrong with him if he thought he could interfere with the jury. Worse than the media trying to!

 

[marlywings]

Just to clarify...

Cowan's previous attempts at appeal because of the CM photo & a note to the jury that was left at Daniel's memorial were both dismissed.

He's now appealing his murder conviction on the grounds the jury at his trial should not have heard recordings of his confessions.

And he won't have a hope in heck of a successful appeal with that.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...dges-appeal-20140409-36ctj.html#ixzz36JiRmQYR

 

[JCB]

My impression was that one of Fuller's main goals was to demonstrate for the jury the nasty side of GBC and how easily it could be brought out, to show them that this person was capable of the crime.

Prior to that there was a chance they could fall for his sooky-la-la act and think - ok the guy's a twit and terrible bore, but is he capable of murder?

Oh you could absolutely be right and perhaps it was successful, only the jurors will know.

Most of us here seem to either have a personal or professional interest in this case and as such, it makes it hard for most to be truly impartial (although I do try!).

I just think to myself that if I was on this jury I'd be begging for that one last thing that I could convict on, rehashing the same stuff that has already been heard would frustrate me no end I would imagine. But there are 12 different people on that jury and for all I know they could be polar opposites to me, but I can only opine on what Fuller QC's cross did for me.

 

[JK673]

Sorry, but am too tired to go back over posts for today, but first up in court today was judge talking about note GBC gave to ballif to give to the jury. Ballif didn't and gave it to judge. GBC had done this without his lawyers knowing. His lawyers took him aside to 'discuss' then court resumed and jury was called back in. OMG, what was on that note??? Was it his business card??? Was it an invitation to a female juror to meet up??? Or did he simply tell them all that he loved them and it was business as usual.

Geez, his IQ is getting lower by the minute!

 

[Trooper]

The note to the jury, likely said, "I did not kill my wife"! Something very wrong with him if he thought he could interfere with the jury. Worse than the media trying to!

if that's what he did.. .. he is even sillier than I thought, and that's a depth of silliness right off the scoreboard..

that's almost in the realm of diagnosable disconnect... well. it IS in the realm of a diagnosed intellectual impairment..

 

[Humdinger]

What on earth was he thinking writing a note to the jury??? That just... I have no words...