Gerard Baden Clay's murder appeal

[they'll get you]

It was all about self preservation.
I loath GBC.

From the moment Gerard Baden-Clay killed his wife Allison on April 19, 2012 - accidentally, Queensland's highest court has now ruled - his focus was on just one thing: self-preservation.

In truth, he knew exactly where she was.
Advertisement

Under the Kholo Creek bridge, 13 kilometres from their home in Brisbane's affluent west, where, under the cover of darkness on April 19, he drove her lifeless body and dumped it on the creek bed.
The presence of Allison Baden-Clay's blood in the family Holden Captiva provided almost irrefutable proof that is what he did, while the scratches she left on his face as she fought him that night told investigators it was he who had killed her.

The foliage from their garden found in her hair told them he had done it at their Brookfield home.
The growing forensic evidence in the case overwhelmingly pointed to his guilt.
But Baden-Clay's focus never wavered. It was self-preservation above all else.


Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/que...eservation-20151208-glipb5.html#ixzz3y3l6YPj5
Follow us: @brisbanetimes on Twitter | brisbanetimes on Facebook

 

[they'll get you]

The no mud gets me confused too. But GerryRocks has photos showing that there is no way Allison was thrown from the bridge and the Prosecution surmised that GBC took a side road to dispose of Allison's body where she was found. The absence of mud on the Captiva/shoes etc??? I don't recall, but it was the weekend before Allison was found that all the rain occurred. Maybe it was dry on the night her body was dumped, eg no mud.

IIRC Allison was stuck into the mud and that was the reason she remained where she landed. I remain confused as some say she was slightly under the bridge. But according to the judge who said she was thrown off.
I can't see that mongrel taking the time and care of climbing down and gently placing Allison there.


After he killed her, the judge said Baden-Clay took Allison’s body to the creek and threw her over the edge.

http://www.news.com.au/national/jur...n/news-story/b714aded0ee5280e31ab68b1258d0a16


The bridge railing is low enough to lift and throw a body over.

 

[Couldbe]

Thank you for your latest posts They'll get you.

To have seen the performance of GBC when he took the witness stand pleading his total innocence in causing Allison’s long standing emotional pain and finally her death is something never to be forgotten.

Remembering this and looking at photos of Allison’s swollen and lifeless body in the mud under the bridge and knowing he really was involved in this beggars belief.

…… the warped mind of him and his focus on self-preservation and the financial benefits he sought so quickly from the Insurance Company (with his Father’s involvement as well) also beggars belief.

Cannot, cannot understand how three very learned Appeal Court Judges were outsmarted by this and accepting of such a lame and evidently unsupported hypothesis to allow his self-preservation focus to now reap this latest result.

……. also beggars belief that he may even contest the latest Manslaughter verdict.

……. is it possible that after so long dealing with all the legal cases in which they have been involved, that these three Appeal Judges ‘can’t see the wood for the trees’ .... brought about by what?

 

[Amee]

[h=1]Retired judge delivers his verdict on why appeal court should not have downgraded Baden-Clay conviction[/h]February 1, 2016

The judge, who has more than 50 years’ experience as a legal practitioner and judge, has defended, prosecuted and tried many cases of murder.
He is withholding his identity only to avoid controversy.

THIS IS HIS FULL OPINION:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...n/news-story/6ca8309c653d9cc23e0e75a81b0c8adb

 

[Fuskier]

FYI
http://video.theaustralian.com.au/v/431767/BadenClay-appeal-to-appear-in-High-Court


Baden-Clay appeal to appear in High Court
Arguments will be submitted to the High Court appealing the downgrade of Gerard Baden-Clay's conviction.
SKY NEWS 01 FEBRUARY 2016

 

[Fuskier]

Brisbane News ‏@BrissieLiveNews 9h9 hours ago
Plomp link to Baden-Clay case http://dlvr.it/KMh865 (News) #brisbane #qld
https://t.co/bTz54SbSPr
Plomp link to Baden-Clay case
Senior lawyers are drawing parallels between a landmark Queensland murder from the 1960s and the case against Gerard Baden-Clay ...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...lay-case-reminiscent-of-hendrikus-plomp-case/

Lawyers say Baden-Clay case reminiscent of Hendrikus Plomp case
February 1, 2016 1:00am
David MurrayThe Courier-Mail

"Hendrikus Plomp was convicted of murdering his wife by drowning her in the Southport surf in 1961 in a verdict later upheld by the High Court. Both cases involve adulterous husbands killing their wives in circumstances where there were no witnesses to the deaths" ...

"Several lawyers said the Baden-Clay appeal revived memories of the Plomp murder. In an independent assessment of the Baden-Clay appeal, a retired judge writes the High Court’s decision in Plomp provides a “clear exposition of the law in relation to the use of evidence in a circumstantial case”.

 

[they'll get you]

A RETIRED judge has delivered a scathing verdict on the downgrading of Gerard Baden-Clay’s murder conviction to manslaughter, declaring Queensland’s highest court “got it wrong”.

The interstate judge says three Court of Appeal judges, led by Chief Justice Catherine Holmes, began with a “misstep” and lost sight of the Crown’s case.

He adds it is “nonsense” to conclude Baden-Clay had no reason to murder wife Allison.

“The simple fact is the Court of Appeal got it wrong,” concludes the former Supreme Court judge after independently assessing the controversial decision.

 

[Fuskier]

FYI
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ng-to-downgrade-badenclays-murder-conviction/

Retired judge says appeal court was wrong to downgrade Baden-Clay’s murder conviction
February 1, 2016 1:00am
David MurrayThe Courier-Mail

"Scratches on an offender’s face are “commonly regarded as consistent with a last desperate struggle”. In the circumstances of this case, I suggest any other interpretation would be almost *perverse.”

“The law permits an appellate court to determine whether inferences may be drawn from proven primary facts,” the judge writes. “But the law does not permit an appellate court to substitute its own inferences for those legitimate inferences which a jury must have drawn to convict in any particular case.

“In the present case there was clear evidence which permitted the jury to consider that there had been an intentional killing and to reject the manslaughter hypothesis.”

This retired judge's opinion covers i.e. Legal Opinion, The road to wrong conclusions by QCA and his interpretation of the evidence... a breath of fresh air!

 

[Fuskier]

FYI
Australasian Lawyer is your top source for breaking news on the Australasian legal landscape.

Australasian Lawyer ‏@Aus_Lawyer 4m4 minutes ago
Judge says Court of Appeal got Baden-Clay case wrong http://bit.ly/1Q4IGkn

 

[Fuskier]

FYI

Sky News Australia ‏@SkyNewsAust 4m4 minutes ago
Prosecutors will today file their arguments in the High Court seeking to have Gerard Baden-Clay's murder conviction reinstated ( JohannaMari

 

[they'll get you]

I can't believe he's raising his ugly head again. I hope his happiness has turned to fear reading this latest article.

No remorse! He's worse than I thought. The word 'dangerous' comes to mind.

 

[BreakingNews]

Wow, i like this judge. Common sense from someone in the legal circle. Intent, of course there was evidence of intent!

Sent from my Blade S6 using Tapatalk

 

[Ochre Blue]

Thanks to all for the updated news. Good to hear about the retired judge's opinion.

Unfortunately all of the Murdoch press is behind a pay wall & thus subscription only (e.g. Courier Mail, Daily Telegraph).

 

[they'll get you]

Whatever it takes to shut his face once and for all. Game on.

Baden-Clay appeal to appear in High Court

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/nati...en-clay-appeal-to-appear-in-high-court-w.html

 

[JCB]

Not even sure where to start with this latest article.

First of all, why would this supposed retired Supreme Court judge make such claims anonymously on the basis of not wanting to be controversial? It would hardly be controversial as it mirrors opinion of a large percentage of the general public and while it is at odds with pretty much every legal practitioner that has been publicly quoted, he no longer holds judicial office (or presumably even a practicing certificate) so it's certainly in no way prejudicial and judicial decisions have been widely criticised in the past by former judges with no ill effect.

This is not a case where a journalist may be compelled to reveal their source so the more cynical among us might wonder how qualified this former "judge" really is to offer a professional opinion. At least one former high profile judge has already stated that the QCA made the right call, it was not attributed to an anonymous person and by implication was critical of Justice Byrne's dismissal of the no case submission so it would be drawing a long bow to suggest that being critical of the QCA would be controversial in the slightest.

Secondly, some of the quoted passages in the article shows a remarkable degree of miscomprehension, misunderstanding of case law (and human behaviour) as well as introducing medical "facts" that are (inadmissably) speculative at best, totally wrong at worst.

I understand that anonymity is necessary in certain aspects of journalism but there is not a single reason that I can come up with that would indicate that it is required here. Combine this oddity with the "quality" of the assessment of a supposedly highly experienced judge of the (unnamed) Supreme Court and you'll have to excuse me if I take this article with a very large grain of salt. Another dreadful CM article (sensing a pattern here) that does nobody any good.

 

[Fuskier]

Marlina WhopVerified account ‏@MarlinaWhop 9m9 minutes ago
#BREAKING DPP has filed its legal argument on Gerard Baden-Clay case to the high court @7NewsQueensland

 

[Fluffykins]

FYI
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ng-to-downgrade-badenclays-murder-conviction/

Retired judge says appeal court was wrong to downgrade Baden-Clay’s murder conviction
February 1, 2016 1:00am
David MurrayThe Courier-Mail

"Scratches on an offender’s face are “commonly regarded as consistent with a last desperate struggle”. In the circumstances of this case, I suggest any other interpretation would be almost *perverse.”

“The law permits an appellate court to determine whether inferences may be drawn from proven primary facts,” the judge writes. “But the law does not permit an appellate court to substitute its own inferences for those legitimate inferences which a jury must have drawn to convict in any particular case.

“In the present case there was clear evidence which permitted the jury to consider that there had been an intentional killing and to reject the manslaughter hypothesis.”

This retired judge's opinion covers i.e. Legal Opinion, The road to wrong conclusions by QCA and his interpretation of the evidence... a breath of fresh air!

RSBM

Yes! Yes!! Yesss!!!!!!!!

 

[Fuskier]

Nine News BrisbaneVerified account ‏@9NewsBrisbane 10m10 minutes ago
DPP files High Court documents in an ongoing bid to reinstate Gerard Baden-Clay's murder conviction: http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/01/19/28/dpp-files-high-court-docs-over-baden-clay … #9News


http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/01/19/28/dpp-files-high-court-docs-over-baden-clay
Baden-Clay's lies point to intent: DPP
7:47pm February 1, 2016

Gerard Baden-Clay's conduct after the death of his wife Allison could be considered "disproportionate" to that of a man who had unintentionally killed his wife...

These documents claim the Queensland court made a mistake in finding evidence of Baden-Clay's lies, disguised wounds and disposal of his wife's body was "intractably neutral" when it came to establishing intent...

 

[Couldbe]

Not even sure where to start with this latest article.

First of all, why would this supposed retired Supreme Court judge make such claims anonymously on the basis of not wanting to be controversial? It would hardly be controversial as it mirrors opinion of a large percentage of the general public and while it is at odds with pretty much every legal practitioner that has been publicly quoted, he no longer holds judicial office (or presumably even a practicing certificate) so it's certainly in no way prejudicial and judicial decisions have been widely criticised in the past by former judges with no ill effect.

This is not a case where a journalist may be compelled to reveal their source so the more cynical among us might wonder how qualified this former "judge" really is to offer a professional opinion. At least one former high profile judge has already stated that the QCA made the right call, it was not attributed to an anonymous person and by implication was critical of Justice Byrne's dismissal of the no case submission so it would be drawing a long bow to suggest that being critical of the QCA would be controversial in the slightest.

Secondly, some of the quoted passages in the article shows a remarkable degree of miscomprehension, misunderstanding of case law (and human behaviour) as well as introducing medical "facts" that are (inadmissably) speculative at best, totally wrong at worst.

I understand that anonymity is necessary in certain aspects of journalism but there is not a single reason that I can come up with that would indicate that it is required here. Combine this oddity with the "quality" of the assessment of a supposedly highly experienced judge of the (unnamed) Supreme Court and you'll have to excuse me if I take this article with a very large grain of salt. Another dreadful CM article (sensing a pattern here) that does nobody any good.

JCB in your scepticism with regard to the validity of ‘this retired NSW Judge’s’ comments, sounds like you are saying David Murray has fabricated the claims of the Judge …… Yes/No?

I for one Websleuther on this case have respected your apparent knowledge of the Queensland Law in our Court trials, and the time you have taken to impart this knowledge to us.
Not sure where you stand on the guilt of Baden Clay ….. be he guilty of Murder, Manslaughter or whether you might think he is innocent of any involvement at all in the death of Allison.

Maybe you are only interested in the Law and its application in the finding of a verdict ….. and rightly so.

Many, many of us attended the trial, and (like the Jury also did in their deliberations) listened to the evidence by witnesess, Expert witnesses and Baden Clay himself, and we concluded that he is guilty of Murder, based on the circumstantial evidence produced at the Trial.

With the Prosecution taking the matter to the High Court the opportunity, of having those Judges examine the evidence to either support the Appeal or reject it, is confirmed.

If finally accepted, whatever the decision of the High Court, it will have to be accepted by, as Chief Justice Catherine Holmes has said …. ‘the informed and the staggeringly ill-informed’.

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/baden-clay-dpp-files-case-murder-conviction/7131362

Gerard Baden-Clay: Prosecutors outline case for reinstatement of murder conviction in wife Allison's death
01/02/2016 7.45pm

The DPP argued the Court of Appeal got it wrong when it concluded there was not enough evidence to prove he intended to kill his wife.
It argued there was a motive including Gerard Baden-Clay's affair.
"This is evidence of motive ... which a jury might infer intention."

The DPP's also argued Baden-Clay's actions after his wife's death showed intent.

Baden-Clay's defence team has 21 days to lodge their response.