The Crown v Gerard Baden-Clay, 25th June - Trial Day 10, Week 3

[they'll get you]

a lot of investment was made by witnesses.. Nige, Olivia, Cheeseman, Cranna and Christ, even Toni , as to the state of Alisons psyche.. most of it relayed to them by Gerard..

Obviously, the judge has said, no dice.. he has , in reality, knocked the suicide interpretation right on its head.

My nephew who works in a court house explained it to me.
In my very lay mans terms, the defence has said the prosecution can't prove anything and the judge stepped in and said oh yes there is enough evidence. So judge has said game on. Because the jurors were sent out then it will now be up to the jurors to decide.
Hope this makes sense because at the moment I'm overwhelmed.

 

[Makara]

This is to the people saying that there may be some new evidence come out over the next few days, I believe this isn't possible.

I was talking to a friend who has been in the industry for 10+ years the other day and they said that all of the evidence that the QPS/Prosecution are using MUST be stated and be made aware before the trial starts.

He told me if it's this far into the trial now, there won't be any new/damning evidence to come out that we don't know about.

This could be wrong but he has been working in the courts for quite a while now and sounded quite sure about it.

Thanks Jam. My understanding is that new evidence can be presented at trial but it first needs to be seen by the opposing team and if they disagree, they have to state their reasons why. The new evidence is then shown to the judge and the same thing applies. He either agrees or disagrees and gives the reason for his decision. If he agrees, it is then recorded that new evidence has been submitted and will be heard.

 

[JCB]

There seems to be a little bit of confusion in relation to this afternoon's happenings.

I am not privy to these very recent proceedings in the GBC trial (so please, draw no inference from my comments) but what is likely to have happened is extremely standard in circumstantial cases such as this.

Upon the closing of the prosecution case, the defence may ask the Judge to consider a "no case submission" meaning that in the opinion of the defence, there is no prospect of a reasonable jury finding the defendant guilty. It is rare for such a request to be obliged, particularly when the case has gone through a committal hearing but it does happen from time to time.

What this does NOT mean is that -

- ABC was definitely murdered in the opinion of the Judge.
- A conviction is inevitable or even likely.
- GBC has confessed that he was in any way involved in ABC's death or made submissions that he would plead to a lesser charge.

Like most here, I do have an opinion, a strong one at that but I believe the Crown case is weak. By no means do I believe the prosecution erred in any way, they worked well with what they have but this one was always going to be an uphill battle.

- Conflicting witness options in relation to the cause and direction of GBC's facial wounds (and to a lesser degree, his chest abrasion/rash/bruise).
- No evidence placing GBC at the scene where ABC's body was discovered.
- No clear cause of death.
- While ABC didn't appear to be suicidal, many of us who have lost loved ones in this most tragic of manners would attest that it certainly isn't always obvious that someone is at risk of harming themselves. One cannot absolutely exclude suicide no matter how happy or content someone seems.

I don't believe that the defence will call any witnesses. Of course I could be wrong but I'd be very surprised if they did.

I can only hope that if GBC is indeed responsible for the death of his wife that he is convicted and appropriately punished, however if you asked me if I was confident of a conviction then unfortunately I couldn't answer in the affirmative

 

[they'll get you]

he could be free tomorrow night!!

noooo!

 

[they'll get you]

After subscribing to WS two years ago and spending hours and hours readings these posts, I have only just found out how to refresh the page! Duh!

See booze is your friend, it opens you senses. :floorlaugh:

 

[Smegal]

My nephew who works in a court house explained it to me.
In my very lay mans terms, the defence has said the prosecution can't prove anything and the judge stepped in and said oh yes there is enough evidence. So judge has said game on. Because the jurors were sent out then it will now be up to the jurors to decide.
Hope this makes sense because at the moment I'm overwhelmed.

I find it odd that defence teams do that - isn't that what committal hearings are for?

 

[Cattail]

There seems to be a little bit of confusion in relation to this afternoon's happenings.

I am not privy to these very recent proceedings in the GBC trial (so please, draw no inference from my comments) but what is likely to have happened is extremely standard in circumstantial cases such as this.

Upon the closing of the prosecution case, the defence may ask the Judge to consider a "no case submission" meaning that in the opinion of the defence, there is no prospect of a reasonable jury finding the defendant guilty. It is rare for such a request to be obliged, particularly when the case has gone through a committal hearing but it does happen from time to time.

What this does NOT mean is that -

- ABC was definitely murdered in the opinion of the Judge.
- A conviction is inevitable or even likely.
- GBC has confessed that he was in any way involved in ABC's death or made submissions that he would plead to a lesser charge.

Like most here, I do have an opinion, a strong one at that but I believe the Crown case is weak. By no means do I believe the prosecution erred in any way, they worked well with what they have but this one was always going to be an uphill battle.

- Conflicting witness options in relation to the cause and direction of GBC's facial wounds (and to a lesser degree, his chest abrasion/rash/bruise).
- No evidence placing GBC at the scene where ABC's body was discovered.
- No clear cause of death.
- While ABC didn't appear to be suicidal, many of us who have lost loved ones in this most tragic of manners would attest that it certainly isn't always obvious that someone is at risk of harming themselves. One cannot absolutely exclude suicide no matter how happy or content someone seems.

I don't believe that the defence will call any witnesses. Of course I could be wrong but I'd be very surprised if they did.

I can only hope that if GBC is indeed responsible for the death of his wife that he is convicted and appropriately punished, however if you asked me if I was confident of a conviction then unfortunately I couldn't answer in the affirmative

Thank you for explaining so clearly

 

[they'll get you]

This is true. I think we might all need to take a deep breath and try to have faith and someone to pass around the stiff drinks for those who are feeling a bit nervy.

Medicinal purposes only of course.

 

[Trooper]

Thanks Trooper for your explanation of the Defences' strategy, I feel much relieved.
Sincerely appreciate your valuable input input I am a very new member but I have been following WS since we lost Allison.

I am only guessing at the defence strategy, but it is a guess based on what is allowable under the law and what I would hope my defence team would do if I was in the same position as Gerard, ... highly unlikely as I know my limitations whereas Gerard has yet to understand his..


by rejecting the defence submission, that there was no case to answer as no murder has been demonstrated as occurring, one could infer, and it would be a reasonable inference, that all the witnesses who went to so much effort to outline and underscore Alison as a fragile and reclusive shadowy figure, lying around on a couch behind closed doors, anxiously creeping out dressed in grey and beige, unresponsive to the heritage and glory of her station in life, as the wife of GBC, disobedient to Gerard's skilful parenting regime, all this stuff , I could go on and on, were piddling into the wind.. She was murdered ,says the judge, and an individual has been charged with that crime, and is on trial, and will continue to be on trial until a jury decides the matter..

I call that a damn good day in court.

 

[ford71]

Bring on tomorrow.

Oh boy! what I would do to see GBC up there trying to convince all he has no idea what transpired that night/morning.

 

[they'll get you]

Could someone please tell me how to refresh

On the iPad it's the little semi circle arrow at the top near 'websleuths.com'.
No f5 on iPad.

 

[Thinking]

No, I'm not there Thinking, decided not to and I'm kicking myself for it. :banghead:

Me too!! :banghead:

 

[they'll get you]

this is a huge , crushing blow for the Baden-Clays.. huge, and really, .. so depressing for them, collectively and individually..


they probably had a lot riding on it, as I honestly believe they thought they had put up a good show on the stand, deftly explaining the trials and tribulations of Alison and her moods.. .

but the judge has decided that it wasn't Alisons moods that killed her..

Trooper you are giving hope and much information. We love our Troopster.

 

[emirates1957]

I am on my 2nd rum marly and having another after that :loveyou:

I'll raise you a bourbon and double it.

Had a dream last night that GBC was the Wolf of Wall Street and TMC was Margo Robbie - they both ended up in jail !!!

Thanks again to all for your amazing contributions, it has been a pleasure to be part of this journey to justice.

 

[silverau]

Emotions everywhere. My heart and thoughts with Al's girls, family and her friends.

I am hoping that *if* GBC is guilty that he mans up and comes clean, show his children a good example of owning up to faults and facing the music.

Those girls deserve something positive from their father.

 

[Total]

Can someone explain the process of how witnesses are allocated to prosecution or defence? Does prosecution get first pick? How does it work exactly? Can someone say no, and testify for defence instead?

TIA

They don't pick they can only object. Only so many objections allowed.

 

[JCB]

She was murdered ,says the judge.

I'm sorry but that is definitely NOT the case. It is up to the jury to decide if the offence of murder has been committed, the rejection of a no case submission is not an admission of this. All it means is that the Judge believes that there is the possibility of a reasonable jury finding the defendant guilty based on the evidence led to date. It does not mean that the prospect of a conviction is likely (or unlikely for that matter).

 

[Liadan]

As I imbibe (may I say slowly Mwings) to reduce my level of titchy nervousness at these proceedings. Didn't we expect to have 77 witnesses and now we have seen 71?

So does this mean that the defense can choose not to call these witnesses now so the prosecution can't cross examine them? Or is the defence obligated to let the prosecution question the witnesses?

For all we know these witnesses could be the one of the defence teams' university legal studies student who is in charge of walking papers from the office to court - totally inconsequential. But they are just put at the end of the list for the defense to gain some credibility of having a case and throw some doubt in the eyes of jury. I mean ALL witnesses including NBC and OW have been for the prosecution - I think that is very odd?!!!!

Has this play by defense now incapacitated their ability to present GBC in a positive light. Because if they have nothing to counter claim on their client surely that is damming?

 

[minusfour]

Catching up since lunch time, goodness, I'm still short of breath!
Has the jury been there on Fridays, hearing evidence? (I thought only legal arguments without a jury going on)
I live many kms away- Tassie- and have talked to every person I have seen this week about the case, (pretty much literally, 40+), and no one has doubted his guilt. They are much less informed than us, and much, much less than the jury.
(I was hoping to hear more about the financial stuff, but I guess having ascertained that they were insolvent, it doesn't matter how they got there?)

 

[BJsleuth]

Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond all doubt. If one has to offer explanations for too much then it's no longer rational nor reasonable.