cods wrote on Jan 11
th, 2016 at 12:49pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 11
th, 2016 at 12:04pm:
[quote author=red_baron18 link=1449536783/673#673 date=1452477348]Actually Gregg, I gathered the majority of my information from the Court Papers.
I take it from your comments that you consider your own running commentary on this horsesh.t, you must if you draw a line through what you consider to be worthy comment and what isn't.
You see, unlike you, just because someone has a roll of paper under their arm and a black dressing gown on, I don't believe they can recognise the truth any easier than someone with a semblance of a brain can.
I don't put anyone above me. Life has taught me that there are a lot of bullsh.itters out there and none more so than those walking around in the legal profession.
I rest my case.
You're exactly the same as cods: you don't care what the law says.
WHAT DOES THE LAW ACTUALLY SAY ...
i have check FACEBOOK.. nothing on it at this stage...
Facebook is never a reliable source of information. Go to google instead.
DOES IT SAY....
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT,...
should deal only with the act of death...
Yes.
and what takes place afterwards
has not a thing to do with anything.???
No.
which is what the court of appeal... has said...
The appeal court accepted it was open to the jury to conclude the scratches were from fingernails but their existence could not prove murder."
[highlight]There is nothing about the facial scratches to indicate the circumstances in which they were inflicted; whether they occurred in the course of a heated and perhaps physical argument or in resisting a murderous attack," the judgment read.[/highlight]
The justices also found the Crown argument that dumping the body could infer Baden-Clay was concealing evidence of an intentional killing "
amounted to nothing more than speculation".
The appeal court pointed to the couple's history and minimal physical evidence in the case too.
"
There were no injuries on the body of a kind to indicate an intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm," the judgment read."Nor was there any sign of blood or evidence of a clean-up in the house to suggest violence.
"There was no evidence at all that there had ever been any violence in the relationship between the couple.
"A reasonably open hypothesis was that (Baden-Clay's) wife had attacked him, scratching his face.
"In endeavouring to make her stop he had killed her without intending to do so, with his conduct thereafter being attributable to panic.
Acting Attorney-General Cameron Dick is seeking legal advice about appealing today's decision on the fate of Gerard Baden-Clay.
The Attorney-General must make a decision on any possible appeal within 28 days.
HOW THEY REACTED
Peter Shields, the lawyer for Gerard Baden-Clay, asked the public to read the judgment themselves (see below).
"They'll then be able to read for themselves the very considered reasons of a very experienced court," he said.
"They explain in very simple easy-to-understand language how they came to the conclusion that they did.
"
I think it's important for the public to understand that it's open justice … they can make their own view based on the facts as the court has." EARLIER: Baden-Clay's appeal against murder charge successful
THE Queensland Court of Appeal has upheld wife killer Gerard Baden-Clay's bid to overturn his murder conviction.
He has been found guilty of manslaughter instead and must make submissions on sentence.
The former real estate agent's lawyers argued in early August that the jury had erred in finding him guilty of murdering wife Allison at their Brookfield home in April 2012.
They told the court Baden-Clay could have unintentionally killed his wife Allison during an argument and dumped her body because "he panicked".
"
While findings (Baden-Clay) lied about the cause of his facial injuries and had endeavoured to conceal his wife's body should not have been separated out from the other evidence in considering their effect, the difficulty is that, viewed in that way, the post-offence conduct evidence nonetheless remained neutral on the issue of intent," the judgment, handed down at 9.30am, read."To put it another way,
there remained in this case a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence of murder: that there was a physical confrontation between the appellant and his wife in which he delivered a blow which killed her (for example, by the effects of a fall hitting her head against a hard surface) without intending to cause serious harm; and, in a state of panic and knowing that he had unlawfully killed her, h
[/color]
how does anyone know HIS INTENT????.....
[color=#ff0000]Exactly.
he had scratch marks on his face.. but they dont tell us he attacked her...
it tells us
she attacked him....
because dear fellow non believers...
she had no signs of her being abused when she was found under that bridge.11 days later???>..
unless gweggy has that 3rd person he seems to think may have been at the scene of the crime....
[quote]And cods, too.
[quote]She seems to be certain that only one other
Forum
Pages: 
Baden Clay wins appeal. (Read 100066 times)
