kiwijayne
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 772
- Reaction score
- 750
Also why get her hair redone, organise a sleepover, organise to drop dresses off or plan to attend a conference.
It makes no sense really.
The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 9th July - Trial Day 17
- Thread starter marlywings
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
Also why get her hair redone, organise a sleepover, organise to drop dresses off or plan to attend a conference.
It makes no sense really.
That may have been me KJ. I wasn't saying it was endometrial blood, just that it is possible to differentiate menstrual blood from that caused by a wound because menstrual blood has endometrial cells.
I have a question. The jury have to find him unanimously guilty to be found guilty. Do they have to find him unanimously not guilty to be not guilty? How does the ratio work if not all say guilty?
To my mind he did it, whether you want to accept all the pieces as evidence or only some it's still the only reasonable explanation for what happened to her - that she was killed and by her husband. I think the prosecution ran through the alternative options sufficiently to show they are implausible so you have to accept the only one that is. Sometimes I think the process of elimination can go to substantiating evidence and proving a finding in a circumstantial case, like trying to find the cause of death. By saying what it's not you can narrow right down to what it must be. Not everything leaves its own mark which is why elimination can work. Sometimes it's the lack of something that proves it. We use the process of elimination to find causes in other areas of life, this is no different.
The judge said murder is when you intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (that resulted in her death I guess). Manslaughter would be you accidentally caused it but didn't mean to, like hitting someone with a car while drink driving. You didn't mean to hurt them but are culpable. Here the fingernail marks and other scratches show she wasn't suddenly struck down with a single blow not meant to cause serious damage, she was really fighting back. You only fight back that hard if someone is seriously hurting you and for more than a few seconds. So there's intent to hurt her there, whether to kill or not, at minimum it meets the grievous bodily harm, so I'd find for murder rather than manslaughter. I don't think he planned this for weeks, I think something's happened where he's just lost it that night and acted out either rationally or irrationally.
To my mind he did it, whether you want to accept all the pieces as evidence or only some it's still the only reasonable explanation for what happened to her - that she was killed and by her husband. I think the prosecution ran through the alternative options sufficiently to show they are implausible so you have to accept the only one that is. Sometimes I think the process of elimination can go to substantiating evidence and proving a finding in a circumstantial case, like trying to find the cause of death. By saying what it's not you can narrow right down to what it must be. Not everything leaves its own mark which is why elimination can work. Sometimes it's the lack of something that proves it. We use the process of elimination to find causes in other areas of life, this is no different.
The judge said murder is when you intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (that resulted in her death I guess). Manslaughter would be you accidentally caused it but didn't mean to, like hitting someone with a car while drink driving. You didn't mean to hurt them but are culpable. Here the fingernail marks and other scratches show she wasn't suddenly struck down with a single blow not meant to cause serious damage, she was really fighting back. You only fight back that hard if someone is seriously hurting you and for more than a few seconds. So there's intent to hurt her there, whether to kill or not, at minimum it meets the grievous bodily harm, so I'd find for murder rather than manslaughter. I don't think he planned this for weeks, I think something's happened where he's just lost it that night and acted out either rationally or irrationally.
Good idea Camp Chair. One more time before I turn in for the night - night all
Thanks Alioop and Freya ...... makes perfect sense... all clear now!.... and still catching up!
Why is that devils advocate i think i mentioned stress in my earlier post. She will be very stressed.
Yes I mentioned she was probably stressed in an earlier post
kiwijayne
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 772
- Reaction score
- 750
Heck I think at one stage I fell asleep in court Doh
But how can you be certain it is a duck, beyond reasonable doubt?
logically.. if a jury decided he was guilty of manslaughter, they would also have to find he did this slaughtering in his sleep. That's the evidence he gave.. sound asleep. Likewise, interfering with a corpse at the Kholo Bridge.. done in his sleep.
irrational.
irrational.
Good question
He is looking at us in that photo lolGood idea Camp Chair. One more time before I turn in for the night - night all
snap!!!
Waitingnow
New Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2014
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Haha I said high probability (85% - 90 %) NOT certainty..... noone can ever be certain (100%)
kiwijayne
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 772
- Reaction score
- 750
Apparently that has successfully been used as a defence murder while sleepwalking
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...l-cases-that-invoked-the-sleepwalking-defense
They're not calling QC Fuller "The Silver Fox" for nothing.
I believe GBC didn't want to do the 15 minutes talking to Allison at night because that would have clued her in to too much and enabled her to catch him it still at it. He conceded in the end because he had another plan.
Worm or caterpillar?
Ohhh Good thinking 99
- Status