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

[Camp Chair]

I wonder how Pastor Walton-Baden-Walton-Clay is going with preparing his next sermon to a bewildered congregation. Remember way back the email he sent to his parishoners about how they are going to be hearing a lot of dreadful untruths.........I am imagining him tweeting the trial word for word to his congregation until getting to the bit where Gerard asks the prosecutor how much sordid detail he is expected to give and he suddenly realises and rereads what he has tweeted.....

:floorlaugh: oh Flabbergasted, that scene just played out picture perfect in my widescreen head. I was just thinking about the Pastor this evening. I wonder if he & ABC ever found some common ground on marrying into the unique BC clan. Having witnessed them close ranks to protect their own, has he pondered what would happen if it had of been himself in Allison's place? Does he look at Mr & Mrs Dickie and wonder how his own parents & family would handle such a situation? Has he started paying more attention to his life insurance? How does he reconcile all of this within the faith he practices & teaches others?

 

[Susan12]

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.

The flip side to this argument is the case of the guy who murdered that lady down South, joanne I think, while she was walking home and was just a block from home. He targeted her just because and killed her just because. He had been in jail for crimes against women before but because he confessed to her murder they had to give him a parole period because they do have an incentive for getting confessions in that state. That man should never be let out and they said so but had to give the parole period because he confessed. So here's good and bad points either way. People want answers, but you don't want repeat offenders out just because they confess, so I'm not sure the best thing.

 

[JCB]

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!

Hey it worked for JBP, got a National Party member on the jury and as foreman no less!

 

[BreakingNews]

Night all. Been a big day for me. See you all tomorrow.

 

[marlywings]

Ok folks...enough with the bashing & derogatory comments thanks.

Derogatory Name Changes to Case Players/General Name Calling

In an effort to keep case discussion constructive, name calling, general bashing and using derogatory name variations for any of the case players is not tolerated. Regardless of how we may feel about many of the people that are the focus of our discussion here,it is always best to elevate the conversation and avoid this type of posting behavior. Feel free to express your displeasure with individuals that are being discussed, just avoid petty nastiness,name calling, name changes and over the top rude posts directed at case players

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8364858#post8364858"]Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Consider]

Are those dollar signs I see in those eyes?

Does GBC wear his wedding ring in court?

 

[Thinking]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

or.. ' I will come to you unconditionally when you find me not guilty'...


I can barely type for disbelieving hooting howling laughter..


this is NUTS!!....

The jury should be informed that he tried to send them a letter (not the contents of it, but they really should know he tried in my view)....

 

[Her Honour]

It won't be hard to guess mine as soon as I open my mouth you will notice.:blushing:

Ah, yes, but you and kiwi50 can keep us guessing. And what about all the coolcats? Cattail, catswhiskers and curiousasacat - it's a flipping cat home in here! And I bet we'd be surprised by some genders, ages. Sleuthin' the Sleuths...

 

[heloise]

Gerard gave the baliff a note to give to the JURY???!!!!!!

poor Mr Byrne QC~... . some clients one just cannot , cannot do anything for.. they are just not capable of taking advice, even when they pay for it, they have NO idea of where they are at or even why they are there..

oh poor mr Byrne!

Do you think Gerard is paying Mr Byrne? :banghead:
Where is the money coming from to pay for his defence?:scared:

 

[Susan12]

As far as I remember from being in court on Monday, the Mr Mum blog was brought up just before lunch and the defence made some objection and jury was sent to their room. Legal discussion continued after lunch for awhile, then the jury were brought back and questioning continued on another track. It seemed to me that the prosecution were about to highlight comments from the blog made by GBC re his difficulties in keeping the home fires burning while Allison was away for a week. This was just after GBC had been banging on about what a wonderful and helpful father and husband he was.:jail::jail::jail:

Thanks for replying. It sounded like that where it was going with it. Did they say why the blog wasn't allowed to be included?

Did the jury hear much of it before they had to stop and were they instructed to ignore what they heard or they didn't worry.

 

[Topsy]

The flip side to this argument is the case of the guy who murdered that lady down South, joanne I think, while she was walking home and was just a block from home. He targeted her just because and killed her just because. He had been in jail for crimes against women before but because he confessed to her murder they had to give him a parole period because they do have an incentive for getting confessions in that state. That man should never be let out and they said so but had to give the parole period because he confessed. So here's good and bad points either way. People want answers, but you don't want repeat offenders out just because they confess, so I'm not sure the best thing.

Just to clarify. Her name was Jill and he didn't get parole for her murder. He was on parole when he murdered her which is where the outcry came from. He had committed many crimes against women in the past but kept getting let out. He won't be out this time for many many years.

 

[alioop]

Does GBC wear his wedding ring in court?

It has been reported that he does.

 

[they'll get you]

Do you think Gerard is paying Mr Byrne? :banghead:
Where is the money coming from to pay for his defence?:scared:

Our deep taxpayer pockets. :banghead:

 

[Susan12]

To those who were in court... Did GBC sound truthful when he denied doing those things to Allison that Fuller put to him?

 

[KG1]

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..

A very, very, very desperate man, if this is true.

 

[JK673]

Our deep taxpayer pockets. :banghead:

Really??

 

[JCB]

The flip side to this argument is the case of the guy who murdered that lady down South, joanne I think, while she was walking home and was just a block from home. He targeted her just because and killed her just because. He had been in jail for crimes against women before but because he confessed to her murder they had to give him a parole period because they do have an incentive for getting confessions in that state. That man should never be let out and they said so but had to give the parole period because he confessed. So here's good and bad points either way. People want answers, but you don't want repeat offenders out just because they confess, so I'm not sure the best thing.

I don't know a great deal about the case you mention but you do raise a good point. You could argue that was a failure at the parole board level rather than legislative error but again, I'm not intimately familiar with the Bayley case (I assume that is what you are referring to?).

I wouldn't encourage the government of the day to introduce parole release dates as opposed to eligibility dates in the hope that the parole board would weed out those at risk of re-offending. You are right of course, it's a delicate balancing act but as a rule I don't like mandatory sentences that appear to be populist politics rather than good law.

 

[alioop]

Hey Trooper, speaking of funny things about what barristers wear, what I find amusing is they often carry big red velvet sacks just slung over their shoulder and resting on their black gowns. It's always a Santa moment for me when I spot one of these beauties.
And no I am not jealous i never became a barrister. Us solicitors do all the hard work, and the barristers just swan in at the last minute with their Santa sacks and do their thing in court.

 

[Freya1977]

Just woke up ..... Arg ..... What is roux going on about. I have enca up

Oops. Wrong bread sorry

Oh this made me laugh. Hopefully Really stumbled on over to the Oscar Show OK.

 

[alioop]

Really??

Yes, I understand his defence is funded by legal aid due to his lack of finances. I have no problem with that. That is our system to ensure justice to all, even those accused of terrible crimes.