Kytro wrote on Jan 13
th, 2016 at 2:02pm:
red baron wrote on Jan 13
th, 2016 at 12:49pm:
"A reasonably open hypothesis to 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.
[b]COMMENT[/b]: Why is this a reasonable hypothesis? Why I could reasonably say there is a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that Gerard and Alison argued vehemently, that he attacked her attempting to strangle her and that he sustained the scratches on his face as Alison desperately fought for her life. Why isn’t this scenario equally as plausible as that of the Appeal Judges?
Yes, it is also a reasonable explanation that he murdered her. They are saying there is another explanations that fits with the facts as well, and because of that the lesser of the charges applies because there is reasonable doubt (that is, another explanation) about murder. They are not saying it more likely, they are saying it created doubt about the murder.
That pretty much covers it....
The alternative scenario is equally plausible - but it requires support - whereas with doubt all benefit must go to the defendant....
Did they find his DNA under her nails from scratching his face?
Thought not.... if they had the case would not WHOLLY depend on circumstantial evidence, and reading some of the thoughts put forward here and the misconceptions - I can see that he may well be innocent yet convicted on suspicion.
Now bring on the haters.....
My personal view is he done it - but I can't prove it.