Current Baden Clay - Is the case strong enough?

[tropicaltiger]

The scratches on his hands and chest combined with his face scratches changes things for me a bit. Her car where the blood was found only being 6 weeks old adds another layer of probabilities.

Guilty as sin, despite being circumstantial.

Did I read the prosecution called 60 something witnesses and the defence called 3?

Never commented on these type of matters before, but Baden-Clay is just plain old GUILTY. Nothing goes in his favour, everything fits into place as the jury has now decided, What a sad sad case. Well written by Old Dark Navy. This post not typed by tropical tiger but using his profile (old friends!). BTW, I heard 15 years ... is that considered LIFE or did I hear wrong?

 

[Oneiros]

Never commented on these type of matters before, but Baden-Clay is just plain old GUILTY. Nothing goes in his favour, everything fits into place as the jury has now decided, What a sad sad case. Well written by Old Dark Navy. This post not typed by tropical tiger but using his profile (old friends!). BTW, I heard 15 years ... is that considered LIFE or did I hear wrong?

I believe that's the minimum non-parole on a Qld life sentence.

 

[Zealbee]

Appeal lodged today.

 

[getgaff]

The scratches on his hands and chest combined with his face scratches changes things for me a bit. Her car where the blood was found only being 6 weeks old adds another layer of probabilities.

Guilty as sin, despite being circumstantial.

Did I read the prosecution called 60 something witnesses and the defence called 3?

I saw that also. Didn't paint a good outcome for Baden Clay when the witnesses are stacked up that far against him even with a good lawyer.

To be honest I'm glad it's mostly over, still to be played out if Baden Clay will appeal the sentence, but the kids alone have been through enough torture now surely.

 

[Run n Spread]

Appealed the verdict on 4 grounds. Interesting tactic the defence didn't go for more but I guess they went really specific rather than grasp at anything and risk having the whole thing barely looked at. The grounds are:
1) The verdict was unreasonable
2)The jury should have been informed that the presence of blood in the car of the deceased was only relevant if the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was there as a result of murder.
3) The jury should have been informed that they needed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Baden-Clay disposed Allison's body at Koho Creek in order to use such a finding to establish post-offence conduct related to guilt
4)The trial judge erred in leaving to the jury that Baden-Clay attempted to disguise the marks on his face.

My opinion is just going at face value, those with more experience would know more:
that 1 would require much more information as to what other directions evidence ruled in or out established this. While possible to be accepted it is not merely a case of saying we disagree and are appealing. The facts have been determined by the jury so you'd need to show how these were not presented correctly or due instruction given to certain fact. Possible.
2) Unlikely to get up. Kind of self explanatory and the judge can't instruct as to every single possibility in sight unless a glaring oversight.
3) If the prosecution argued and built a case on this conduct a possibility.
4) Depends. If he actually instructed the jury this was the case I'd say a very strong chance. If no mention was made in summary at all it is a slim chance as this formed a major component of the crown case. If the judge left open the possibility this may have been the case while instructing on reasonable doubt proably not.

My summary opinion. The appeal while not necessarily gold plated is not completely without basis and would have some chance of succeeding on 1 or 2 points. Best he could hope for would be a re trial thou doubt the whole conviction would be quashed.

Would be interesting if the appeal did succeed. No doubt the lawyers would argue there would be no chance of a fair trial given the media reporting all the stuff that was suppressed.

At this point all academic I guess. As far as the law goes Baden Clay is a convicted murderer and while entitled to appeal it hasn't been prepared yet and would be at least 18 months off. More a case of watch this space for any developments.

 

[Broar]

Suprised this thread hasn't been bumped lately: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-08/gerard-baden-clay-wins-appeal/7009464

The findings are in this article as well.

From what I've heard/been reading about this case I think that its about right.

Meanwhile you have thousands of people rallying in Brisbane for Allison today. (I wonder how many actually read these findings)

 

[craffles]

Suprised this thread hasn't been bumped lately: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-08/gerard-baden-clay-wins-appeal/7009464

The findings are in this article as well.

From what I've heard/been reading about this case I think that its about right.

Meanwhile you have thousands of people rallying in Brisbane for Allison today. (I wonder how many actually read these findings)

Agree. Particularly pertinent with Courier Mails inflammatory front page cover in response to the successful appeal to downgrade the charges

 

[_Mike_]

Devastating for the family of Allison and a blight on the Australian justice system.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Devastating for the family of Allison and a blight on the Australian justice system.

Agreed, they should have got it right the first time.

 

[craffles]

Devastating for the family of Allison and a blight on the Australian justice system.

Agree on the first part. Totally disagree on the second part. The law is the law. Emotions don't get interpreted, the law does.

 

[IQ3]

The problem I find with the Law is, when he lies and pleads innocent, he should lose all right to be downgraded to manslaughter. If he really didn't intend to kill her than he should come clean, otherwise it should be murder. That is how the law should work. I think that is the main outrage of the people, that they disagree with the law.

 

[craffles]

The problem I find with the Law is, when he lies and pleads innocent, he should lose all right to be downgraded to manslaughter. If he really didn't intend to kill her than he should come clean, otherwise it should be murder. That is how the law should work. I think that is the main outrage of the people, that they disagree with the law.

Don't disagree but if you left it to the general public to decide the law it would be barbaric. We'd have vigilante hangings for people even remotely accused of a crime.

 

[IQ3]

Don't disagree but if you left it to the general public to decide the law it would be barbaric. We'd have vigilante hangings for people even remotely accused of a crime.

Agreed

 

[_Mike_]

Don't disagree but if you left it to the general public to decide the law it would be barbaric. We'd have vigilante hangings for people even remotely accused of a crime.

I don't agree on that part. It is my opinion that far more people would be satisfied where the legislation and penalties were applicable for the crime committed.

Bayden-Clay was found guilty of murder in a court by 12 peers empaneled to assess the evidence provided by the prosecution. The issue is that through an appeal, a judge has decided to undermine that process through nitpicking at a level which looks obvious that the defendant was clutching at straws to avoid being brought to justice for the crime..

Now it's a case of Bayden-Clay saying " I'm not confessing that I murdered her, but her death was an accident" ?

Blind freddy can see through this, but unfortunately we have another misguided justice who is out of touch. If the criminal justice system is operating efficiently we wouldn't have to worry about vigilantes and mob justice.

 

[craffles]

I don't agree on that part. It is my opinion that far more people would be satisfied where the legislation and penalties were applicable for the crime committed.

Bayden-Clay was found guilty of murder in a court by 12 peers empaneled to assess the evidence provided by the prosecution. The issue is that through an appeal, a judge has decided to undermine that process through nitpicking at a level which looks obvious that the defendant was clutching at straws to avoid being brought to justice for the crime..

Now it's a case of Bayden-Clay saying " I'm not confessing that I murdered her, but her death was an accident" ?

Blind freddy can see through this, but unfortunately we have another misguided justice who is out of touch. If the criminal justice system is operating efficiently we wouldn't have to worry about vigilantes and mob justice.

Forgive my ignorance but is your issue with this case in particular or the leniency of the justice system in general or both?

What's your solution to the issue you have?

 

[_Mike_]

Forgive my ignorance but is your issue with this case in particular or the leniency of the justice system in general or both?

What's your solution to the issue you have?

My issue spans from the general deficiencies of our legal system with the way that the decision of this case was downgraded.

The downgrading of the conviction was not done because there was irrefutable evidence which was brought up as evidence at trial, rather a post trial undermining of the decision between justices based on their own views. Basically, we have a conviction of murder on record being downgraded to manslaughter by another Justice because he didn't agree with the views or logic of the trial judge.

If Baden-Clay was innocent, he should not serve time period.. But now suiting the argument to claim that he accidentally killed her goes against everything the defence argued at trial. If it was an accident, why was it not brought up during trial?

Not a shred of evidence supports the claim that he "accidentally" killed her. He deserves to spend his original sentence period imposed at sentencing. Not a day less.

 

[IQ3]

My issue spans from the general deficiencies of our legal system with the way that the decision of this case was downgraded.

The downgrading of the conviction was not done because there was irrefutable evidence which was brought up as evidence at trial, rather a post trial undermining of the decision between justices based on their own views. Basically, we have a conviction of murder on record being downgraded to manslaughter by another Justice because he didn't agree with the views or logic of the trial judge.

If Baden-Clay was innocent, he should not serve time period.. But now suiting the argument to claim that he accidentally killed her goes against everything the defence argued at trial. If it was an accident, why was it not brought up during trial?

Not a shred of evidence supports the claim that he "accidentally" killed her. He deserves to spend his original sentence period imposed at sentencing. Not a day less.

This sums up my thoughts exactly

 

[craffles]

My issue spans from the general deficiencies of our legal system with the way that the decision of this case was downgraded.

The downgrading of the conviction was not done because there was irrefutable evidence which was brought up as evidence at trial, rather a post trial undermining of the decision between justices based on their own views. Basically, we have a conviction of murder on record being downgraded to manslaughter by another Justice because he didn't agree with the views or logic of the trial judge.

If Baden-Clay was innocent, he should not serve time period.. But now suiting the argument to claim that he accidentally killed her goes against everything the defence argued at trial. If it was an accident, why was it not brought up during trial?

Not a shred of evidence supports the claim that he "accidentally" killed her. He deserves to spend his original sentence period imposed at sentencing. Not a day less.

What you've said makes perfect sense. Based on how you've put it I don't think anyone could disagree. Thanks for detailed response

 

[Lebbo73]

My issue spans from the general deficiencies of our legal system with the way that the decision of this case was downgraded.

The downgrading of the conviction was not done because there was irrefutable evidence which was brought up as evidence at trial, rather a post trial undermining of the decision between justices based on their own views. Basically, we have a conviction of murder on record being downgraded to manslaughter by another Justice because he didn't agree with the views or logic of the trial judge.

If Baden-Clay was innocent, he should not serve time period.. But now suiting the argument to claim that he accidentally killed her goes against everything the defence argued at trial. If it was an accident, why was it not brought up during trial?

Not a shred of evidence supports the claim that he "accidentally" killed her. He deserves to spend his original sentence period imposed at sentencing. Not a day less.

I think that he is pure scum. However, the facts from the original trial don't support a murder conviction. I am pretty sure that he lied. Most people are. But you can only go by the evidence. Emotion doesn't come into it!

 

[_Mike_]

I think that he is pure scum. However, the facts from the original trial don't support a murder conviction. I am pretty sure that he lied. Most people are. But you can only go by the evidence. Emotion doesn't come into it!

It's the workings of the legal system unfortunately. The conduct of the alleged and evidence does support accidental death either.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Verdict of murder has been reinstated
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/la...n/news-story/0a0c805c1736542aa9958bf27b1648bc

 

[Donners]

Full judgment: http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2016/HCA/35

Another example of a Court of Appeal inventing a speculative basis on which the accused could have been acquitted, notwithstanding that it was not run at trial and was indeed contradictory to the accused's account.

I'd have thought Getachew was sufficent warning against that. At least this decision didn't have the same deleterious wider effect.

 

[_Mike_]

Good to see the HCA overturned the appeal decision to reinstate the correct outcome. Bayden Clay will serve what was given to him decided by a jury of his peers

 

[Shell]

Good to see the HCA overturned the appeal decision to reinstate the correct outcome. Bayden Clay will serve what was given to him decided by a jury of his peers

And what is the full sentence?

 

[_Mike_]

And what is the full sentence?

Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts said Gerard Baden-Clay had no further grounds for appeal and would serve a minimum of 15 years in prison.