The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 9th July - Trial Day 17

[JK673]

Just an update....REALLY HAPPY BECAUSE QUEENSLAND BEAT....NO....THRASHED...NSW 32-8

 

[MadDoc]

I'm sure I read it here but hey I could be mistaken.

I googled it was mentioned here some stage but I can't seem to get the link up

It was mentioned, but I remember whoever raised it specifically saying it was NOT menstrual blood. i.e. if it was it would contain endometrial cells, and we would have been informed of this, but it is not in the evidence.

 

[Trooper]

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

I realise that, but Gerard hasn't at any time even approached the subject that he may have been sleepwalking and accidentally killed Allison.. and carried her body to the bridge , still sleepwalking... and sleep walked back..

in those 5 cases, that was what the defence led with.. 4 successful, one unsuccessful...

Gerard didn't lead with this defence.. his defence is that he knows nothing. he was asleep.

 

[BJsleuth]

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.

To a point yes, but that could be giving the appearance of everything being normal, which does happen sometimes when someone is planning suicide, but the phone, nobody else would know if she hadn't charged it and it wouldn't matter. She just wouldn't and she didn't do that to make herself feel better KWIM?

 

[Aunty]

2.46pm

I have been following on and off today as am at a friends house and trying to be social. Have to share that I am sitting under a tree and a caterpillar just fell on my neck. I am taking it as a sign!

Well, well well! Signs were coming in loud and clear today.

Also at 2.46pm today in the main court room,
I was watching ... just as that chair broke ! :HHJP:
What I saw though, was very very weird and I noted that the person sitting on it ...thought the same.
Whats remarkable, is that chair was front and centre.
The person moved out of it and the chair remained empty... whilst the court proceeded.
It was as if the chair was cleared for Allison.
What was being presented ... was exexexextremely important.
You will understand why , when you go back and read the 2.46pm to 2.47 pm posts. (Page23)
I think this is what "broke the camels back" :thud:

 

[kiwijayne]

I realise that, but Gerard hasn't at any time even approached the subject that he may have been sleepwalking and accidentally killed Allison.. and carried her body to the bridge , still sleepwalking... and sleep walked back..

in those 5 cases, that was what the defence led with.. 4 successful, one unsuccessful...

Gerard didn't lead with this defence.. his defence is that he knows nothing. he was asleep.

He didn't lol

After being in court today I'm more convinced he won't get off thanks to Mr Fuller. He spoke so beautifully, to the point and gave Allison the dignity she deserved.

 

[Trooper]

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.

even Gerard could see the problem of talking about a 'past' sexual connection, while keeping it dark that it is still current might have been a juggling act even he couldn't sustain.. ... . you can see the difficulty..

 

[kiwijayne]

2.46pm


Well, well well! Signs were coming in loud and clear today.

Also at 2.46pm today in the main court room,
I was watching ... just as that chair broke ! :HHJP:
What I saw though, was very very weird and I noted that the person sitting on it ...thought the same.
Whats remarkable, is that chair was front and centre.
The person moved out of it and the chair remained empty... whilst the court proceeded.
It was as if the chair was cleared for Allison.
What was being presented ... was exexexextremely important.
You will understand why , when you go back and read the 2.46pm to 2.47 pm posts.
I think this is what "broke the camels back" :thud:

Where you in court today?

 

[Susan12]

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.

Agree completely. He'd give too much away. It was also indicating to him she wasn't going to drop this affair thing and continue on with the marriage like nothing happened and he didn't like that.

I really liked alioop's example of reasonable doubt. It was along the lines of how you don't know 100% you won't get hit by a car when you cross the street but you can reasonably doubt that you will, nothing suggests that you will get hit, so you cross. I feel like some people look at each item of evidence and look for 100% certainty (what if a car i don't see now came at like 200km an hour and hit me out of the blue, you can't say 100% that it couldn't) rather than looking for whether there is any other reasonable explanation for it and if there's not then considering it evidence of guilt. The judge basically said to decide what evidence you accept and then look at that at an overall picture and see if there's no other reasonable explanation other than he caused her death and if so find guilty.

 

[Aunty]

Yes. I started in the overflow court, then after lunch I snuck into the main court room with one of our sisters.

 

[MadDoc]

But how can you be certain it is a duck, beyond reasonable doubt?

Sorry - sort of off topic, but only a little bit.
Medical "in-house" joke.

A GP, a specialist, a surgeon and a pathologist go duck hunting.

Something flies overhead, making "quacking" noises.

GP (excited): I think that's a duck! (turns to specialist): Do you think that could be a duck?

Specialist (looks carefully at the bird with binoculars): Well, I can't be 100% sure. I'll have to run some more tests. Sometimes what appears to be a duck can actually be an Eastern African Spotted Goose, or an Outer Mongolian Red-Footed Turkey, or a seagull. Let's not jump to any conclusions just yet.

Surgeon - points his gun at the bird and shoots. The bird falls out of the sky.
Surgeon turns to the pathologist and says: Run along and see if that was a duck, will you?

 

[JCB]

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.

It has to be unanimous either way, guilty or not guilty.

In the event of 1 or more jurors dissenting with no reasonable prospect of reaching a unanimous decision, the jury would be discharged and it would be up to the ODPP to decide whether a retrial is appropriate in the circumstances.

Oops. better provide a link - http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...J1xxt7IlEy6mwHw&bvm=bv.70138588,d.dGI&cad=rja

 

[Trooper]

To a point yes, but that could be giving the appearance of everything being normal, which does happen sometimes when someone is planning suicide, but the phone, nobody else would know if she hadn't charged it and it wouldn't matter. She just wouldn't and she didn't do that to make herself feel better KWIM?

no. she did it because she expected to be needing it fully charged the next day.. ..

no intention of suicide.

 

[kiwijayne]

Yes. I started in the overflow court, then after lunch I snuck into the main court room with one of our sisters.

I was in the Banco court this morning.

 

[FigTree]

the more I read your post ,Figgers, the more accurate it is.. it explains where he doesn't answer when Toni asks him ,' what about Allison, is she staying on?? ' he goes silent....

I had only gone as far as what was he blabbing about , there was no damn business to sell.. but your post made me think it thru all over again..

thanks for the tweet collection..

You're welcome trooper - and thank-you!

One thing about Todd Fullers closing argument is that he makes me think.
Even though its in Tweets - the way he organized his thoughts and presented them - I have come to a conclusion about the case...


There was something about todays closing words from Mr Supersmartstonecoldfox Fuller which made me sit up because I thought:
'he is not leaving out the possible option that Allison may have been attacked in the Captiva that night'
I will try and find the tweet that turned the lightbulb on.
There is a scenario in which 'Sparky' fits in all of this. (all JMO)

After having a longer think about that, and if that was the case, a lot of things make sense about why the toys were in the back of the car, why Alison had different bottom half clothes on, Allisons 'moderate' mainly right hand side injuries, her upper body injuries, the gouge in her shin, the face injuries around her cheeks, the injury around her mouth, the glove fingertip, the screams heard, the scratches on his face, her blood in the car, the hair, the leaves found in her jumper and hair, no evidence in the house, why the girls weren't woken, why GBC went downstairs outside during the evening at around 7.30pm, the phone being taken off charge at 8:30pm, replaced after 1.48am, the car being used and specifically by him driving the car, the empty medication packet found in the glovebox... the GBC story
It starts with
ETA* "Allison, can you help me put these things in the car..."

So when BC says some things - they are (as have been mentioned) half truths - they may be on the surface, partially right, but they are not in context with the bones of the question.
The 2 phase questioning was bothering me earlier on in the trial from Fuller (just slightly ).

Now...
I believe
- that GBC did murdered her.
- it was intentional
- it was premeditated to the point of a timeline
- It was not opportunistic - it was scheduled
- that it was planned with the purpose of nil evidence being found.
- the attack began/took place in Allison car 'Sparky'
- That Allison fought which changed the variables of GBCs plan in more than one ways.

- I doubt where Allison was found was the initial intentional resting place planned by GBC
- I think that GBC thought he could keep the story he had so meticulously worked at offering the Police to fit the altered circumstances which eventuated.

Without the scratches on his face - he could have been a highly suspicious POI - but,
GBC wasnt planning on anything going wrong.
Not with his premeditated meticlous planning and timing - he thought he was prepared and had everything covered.
What he did not/could not factor into the equation, and did not consider, was the scratches left by Allisons fingernails making a wound that was identifiable as such - and having to come up with an excuse which opened up the investigation.
Add that to the other evidence he neither saw nor considered ...
He's been outfoxed!

and I am beyond Doubt.


Very clever Mr supersmartstonecoldfox Fuller knows BC is Allison's murderer.
There's something in his words which he is convinced about - but in his position he cant possibly say.
I think its why the first few days of the trial he kept the focus on the house and to those facts at the Brookfield home and property and didnt veer far outside the property line.

Brainfry & JMOO

 

[BJsleuth]

no. she did it because she expected to be needing it fully charged the next day.. ..

no intention of suicide.

Exactly. She was going to that conference!

 

[kiwijayne]

Did I miss something?

 

[Mr Marple]

2.46pm


Well, well well! Signs were coming in loud and clear today.

Also at 2.46pm today in the main court room,
I was watching ... just as that chair broke ! :HHJP:
What I saw though, was very very weird and I noted that the person sitting on it ...thought the same.
Whats remarkable, is that chair was front and centre.
The person moved out of it and the chair remained empty... whilst the court proceeded.
It was as if the chair was cleared for Allison.
What was being presented ... was exexexextremely important.
You will understand why , when you go back and read the 2.46pm to 2.47 pm posts. (Page23)
I think this is what "broke the camels back" :thud:

I was there too Aunty. It was interesting moment. Gave me a fright at the time. I hadn't considered your take on it.

 

[BJsleuth]

Did I miss something?

I don't think so KJ. Why?

 

[Aunty]

David Murray ‏@TheMurrayD 2m
Loud bang rang out through court. New chair being brought over. Proceedings paused

The juror is in a new seat, judge resumes

Gerard's role was simply to listen to his wife for 15 minutes every second day - Justice Byrne

Justice Byrne going through Allison's questions about the affair

This is what was said after the chair broke