Australian Politics Forum - Baden Clay wins appeal.

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38867
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1290 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 2:59pm

cods wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 2:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 2:44pm:

The cover up is no accident, but, in my pretend scenario (which we saw as flies on the wall) we know all he did was push her away to pause her attack....no intent other than that.

because you wrote the story.......

funn y but you didnt write the real story and there were no flies on the wall..

all we had was one persons version and according to him he WASNT THERE HE WAS ASLEEP>>>

there was NO ACCIDENT>...you story would have a grain of truth if that is what he claimed from day one.....even after her body... one could say..

well yes I suppose... that could have happened that way..

you are blowing in the wind mate..

he lawyers if they were any good would have gone for a re trial...

this way they are gone and they know it..

their whingeing will be all about saving their face.. they know Gerard killed her...

intent or not he KILLED HER>

Cods it is impossible to keep up with that scatter gun of yours, but the whole point of the pretend scenario was to demonstrate to you that post death behavior does not alter what in fact occurred pre-death. The High Court decision amounts to a check list for defence lawyers in future.......and the clear message is ~ keep your client's mouth shut as if something unconnected with the events leading up to death is said, a Jury might use it to conclude the facts were not as they really were or are known and can be proven.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:07pm by Aussie »

IP Logged

PZ547

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9282
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1291 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:10pm

But HE DID NOT keep his mouth shut

HE DID NOT

Long before solicitors were involved

HE tried to pass off HIS version of events to attending police

HE told his daughters their mother had fallen down a hole and would not be coming back

HE staged multiple texts/calls to the wife he KNEW was dead in order to create an alibi. And THAT played a large role in the jury's verdict

BECAUSE jurys are comprised of ordinary citizens. Therefore, members of a jury know how THEY would react if they had killed their loved-one by accident

The media is filled with it every day -- with people calling an ambulance to attend to someone who may or not have been killed/injured accidentally. People are dumped outside police stations and hospitals by their killers and/or attackers

In the Baden Clay case, the jury saw photographs and forensic evidence concerning the body of Alison Baden Clay as it was discovered on a river bank many days after her demise

The only way to explain that fact was for Baden Clay's solicitors to claim the deceased had killed herself. But the forensic evidence did not support suicide. Therefore, the jury suspected the deceased had been transported to the river bank by one or more others. Did the deceased have enemies? No. Who stood to gain from her death? Her spouse

So whether or not Baden Clay had -- as you continually harp on about -- 'kept his mouth shut' .... suspicion fell naturally upon him

Yet he denied it. He had the perfect opportunity to confess to the jury at the time that yes, he'd killed her, but it had been an accident. Instead, he took over the court for hours and repeatedly denied ANY knowledge about her death

So you, Aussie, seem to have a fixation about 'keeping mouth shut'. But not only was Baden Clay incapable of keeping his mouth shut, he consistently dug his own hole

Maybe when giving advice, it should be to tell the truth?

Back to top

All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38867
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1292 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:40pm

Quote:

But HE DID NOT keep his mouth shut

HE DID NOT

Long before solicitors were involved

HE tried to pass off HIS version of events to attending police

All true and the High Court decision will ensure no-one does that again.

Quote:

HE told his daughters their mother had fallen down a hole and would not be coming back

Not true. He did not tell them that.

Quote:

HE staged multiple texts/calls to the wife he KNEW was dead in order to create an alibi. And THAT played a large role in the jury's verdict

I do not know about any 'staging.' That would be speculation. More importantly, I have no idea what played a 'large role' in the verdict and neither do you.

Quote:

BECAUSE jurys are comprised of ordinary citizens. Therefore, members of a jury know how THEY would react if they had killed their loved-one by accident

Sure, in the land of heroes and soldiers who just know in advance what they'll do when they are finally confronted with what they are trained to confront. Many will not perform as expected, and neither do ordinary people unexperienced with having accidentally killed their Wife know what they will actually then do. It's a nice motherhood theory, one I'd hope I'd execute, but I'll never know until I am actually confronted with that position.

Quote:

The media is filled with it every day -- with people calling an ambulance to attend to someone who may or not have been killed/injured accidentally. People are dumped outside police stations and hospitals by their killers and/or attackers.

Jeebuz, where do you live?

Quote:

In the Baden Clay case, the jury saw photographs and forensic evidence concerning the body of Alison Baden Clay as it was discovered on a river bank many days after her demise

Yeas, and takes us nowhere.

Quote:

The only way to explain that fact was for Baden Clay's solicitors to claim the deceased had killed herself.

Wrong. It is true they did float that as a possibility. If I had been there, I would never have offered an explanation as to how the body got there. The Defence never has to provide any explanation. It is for the Prosecution to exclude suicide. If the Judge has asked "Mr Aussie, are you contending suicide?' 'No Your Honour, I have no idea, that is for the Crown to explain, not me.'

Quote:

But the forensic evidence did not support suicide.

True, and it also did not support murder.

Quote:

Therefore, the jury suspected the deceased had been transported to the river bank by one or more others. Did the deceased have enemies? No. Who stood to gain from her death? Her spouse

True. How about probing Martians, or the Bad Fairies. Who knows.

Quote:

So whether or not Baden Clay had -- as you continually harp on about -- 'kept his mouth shut' .... suspicion fell naturally upon him

Sure, suspicion did. That is not evidence.

Quote:

Yet he denied it. He had the perfect opportunity to confess to the jury at the time that yes, he'd killed her, but it had been an accident. Instead, he took over the court for hours and repeatedly denied ANY knowledge about her death

Correct. He was not obliged to say anything, and he is now living to regret his big mouth.

Quote:

So you, Aussie, seem to have a fixation about 'keeping mouth shut'. But not only was Baden Clay incapable of keeping his mouth shut, he consistently dug his own hole

I have no 'fixation.' I am commenting on the legal lesson which out of this loud and long.

'Keep your client's mouth shut.'

Quote:

Maybe when giving advice, it should be to tell the truth?

And put your life in the hands of people who just know what they'd do if they accidentally killed their wife in an argument, one in which she was attacking and you pushed her away to pause her attack?

Not on your nelly after this decision.

I am not defending Baden Clay. I am discussing the legal lessons of the decision.

Back to top

IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1293 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:47pm

Obviously, aussie's "legal advice" is ...

IF the Police want to talk to you about "anything", don't tell them a thing, lawyer up and give them a reason to consider that you are very obviously guilty (of whatever).

IF you are innocent (of anything), lawyer up and keep your mouth shut. The Police will try to "stitch you up".

What a lot of crap.

IF you are INNOCENT and it REALLY was an ACCIDENT, why not just ring 000 and call the Ambulance, meanwhile starting CPR?

WHY tell a bunch of porkies and dig yourself a MUCH LARGER HOLE?

As always, you should tell the TRUTH. LIARS like Baden-Clay deserve exactly what they got and I hope he doesn't get to try another "appeal" .... he should take up writing a book on painting, homosexual sex, or something. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38867 Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #1294 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:51pm Quote: I hope he doesn't get to try another "appeal" Surely you know he can now appeal to the Really Full Bench of the High Court? Huh? Your legal advice is as valuable as any you can offer on ophthalmology and should be ignored.
Back to top	IP Logged

Neferti Gold Member Offline Posts: 7965 Canberra Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #1295 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:53pm Aussie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:51pm: Quote: I hope he doesn't get to try another "appeal" Surely you know he can now appeal to the Really Full Bench of the High Court? Huh? Your legal advice is as valuable as any you can offer on ophthalmology and should be ignored. YAWN
Back to top	« Last Edit: Sep 1^st, 2016 at 8:57am by Neferti » IP Logged

PZ547

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9282
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1296 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:55pm

You can spin it all year, Aussie

the fact remains, the onus for introducing manslaughter, accidental killing, etc. in the first trial was on the defence, not the prosecution

But HOW could the defence introduce accidental killing/manslaughter etc. when Baden Clay repeatedly denied to investigators and the court that he'd had any involvement in his wife's death?

Next time, Baden Clay should listen to his solicitors. Undoubtedly, they advised him to plead involuntary manslaughter. But the guy's a narcissist and refused any suggestion that he may have played a role in his wife's death. He thought he could get up there on the stand and 'sell' his innocence to the jury. The guy's a tit

He ended up in prison. Took him a while to accept he'd failed to persuade the world of his innocence. Then, he thought he'd win via appeal. Because he's a narcissist and doesn't believe he should be held accountable

What did his solicitors have to work with? It would have been as clear to them as to the rest of the world that their client was a murderous, lying piece of excreta

So they came up with a ludicrous ground for appeal, that of his not intending to kill his wife

But before they could further that one, they first had to confess on their client's behalf that after all his lies and denials, yes, he'd killed her

Then Step Two of the ludicrous defence: he'd killed her but hadn't meant to. It had been unintentional. An accident

Ludicrous

As to 'precedent' -- Baden Clay's solicitors' failed attempt to spring him from prison would itself have been a ghastly precedent if it had succeeded

Just think: anyone could commit a crime -- deny it -- find themselves convicted and imprisoned -- after which they'd appeal and confess to the crime they'd repeatedly denied, after which they'd claim their crime had been 'unintentional, an accident' -- and as grounds for the ludicrous appeal, they'd try to blame the prosecution for not introducing the possibility of manslaughter or other accidental eventuality during the trial

Which is why Baden Clay's appeal failed. The onus for introducing manslaughter was solely on him and his legal reps from the outset

The appeal deserved to fail. It was laughable

But you could put it to the test. You're caught speeding and drunk. You go before the court and are convicted on the evidence. After six months in prison, try appealing on the grounds that you were accidentally drunk and accidentally speeding. And try blaming the prosecution for failing to include those excuses on your behalf. See how you go

Back to top

All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38867
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1297 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 4:20pm

PZ547 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:55pm:

You can spin it all year, Aussie

the fact remains, the onus for introducing manslaughter, accidental killing, etc. in the first trial was on the defence, not the prosecution

Incorrect. See later.

But HOW could the defence introduce accidental killing/manslaughter etc. when Baden Clay repeatedly denied to investigators and the court that he'd had any involvement in his wife's death?

Easily. "Members of the Jury, if after you have deliberated you conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused did in some direct way cause the death of his Wife, notwithstanding his evidence that he did not, your task is only half completed. You then need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time he did so, he intended to kill her or cause her grievous bodily harm..........etc etc etc"

Next time, Baden Clay should listen to his solicitors. Undoubtedly, they advised him to plead involuntary manslaughter. But the guy's a narcissist and refused any suggestion that he may have played a role in his wife's death. He thought he could get up there on the stand and 'sell' his innocence to the jury. The guy's a tit

I don't believe he had legal advice before he was gobbing off to the Cops. There is no such thing as involuntary manslaughter. Stop believing American TV shows.

He ended up in prison. Took him a while to accept he'd failed to persuade the world of his innocence. Then, he thought he'd win via appeal. Because he's a narcissist and doesn't believe he should be held accountable

I have no idea. Neither do you.

What did his solicitors have to work with? It would have been as clear to them as to the rest of the world that their client was a murderous, lying piece of excreta

Rubbish. Lawyers work with what they have whether they believe it or not. It is not their job to decide guilt.

So they came up with a ludicrous ground for appeal, that of his not intending to kill his wife

Not ludicrous. Three Judges of the Court of Appeal agreed with them. In turn, the High Court disagreed with them all, and that's that.

But before they could further that one, they first had to confess on their client's behalf that after all his lies and denials, yes, he'd killed her

No, they had to acknowledge that the Jury concluded he had been directly involving in causing her death. That was an inescapable conclusion of the Jury's decision.

Then Step Two of the ludicrous defence: he'd killed her but hadn't meant to. It had been unintentional. An accident

Ludicrous

No. They had a decent argument. See above re Court of Appeal.

As to 'precedent' -- Baden Clay's solicitors' failed attempt to spring him from prison would itself have been a ghastly precedent if it had succeeded

So, you are happy to accept the High Court decision because you agree with it. (I doubt you've even read it. Have you?) It is obvious that if the High Court had dismissed the Appeal, you'd be whingeing.

Just think: anyone could commit a crime -- deny it -- find themselves convicted and imprisoned -- after which they'd appeal and confess to the crime they'd repeatedly denied, after which they'd claim their crime had been 'unintentional, an accident' -- and as grounds for the ludicrous appeal, they'd try to blame the prosecution for not introducing the possibility of manslaughter or other accidental eventuality during the trial

Get a grip. At no time did Baden Clay make any admission. Neither did his Lawyers.

Which is why Baden Clay's appeal failed. The onus for introducing manslaughter was solely on him and his legal reps from the outset

See above.

The appeal deserved to fail. It was laughable

See above.

But you could put it to the test. You're caught speeding and drunk. You go before the court and are convicted on the evidence. After six months in prison, try appealing on the grounds that you were accidentally drunk and accidentally speeding. And try blaming the prosecution for failing to include those excuses on your behalf. See how you go

Apples/oranges and ignores the legal process of time limits and restrictions on appeals.

Back to top

IP Logged

red baron

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 10204
Blue Mountains
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1298 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 4:24pm

Copy for those who only read the Qld News:

The crunch really came for me when the 3 Qld Court of Appeal Judges, hypothesised that Gerard Baden-Clay had accidentally killed his wife. They had not a single shred to illuminate on just how that he accidentally killed his wife, (something that he had not admitted to in any way shape or form).

In the absence of any facts or admissions the 3 wise monkeys in Queensland made it up for him then downgraded the charge to Manslaughter.

The decision was so incredulous, so jaw dropping, that I couldn't believe what I was reading in their decision.

Thank God that logic prevailed in the High Court and the bullshite that was thrown around by the 3 wise monkeys in Queensland was chucked overboard where it truly belonged.

Yes...there will be a big change in the way such cases a are brought to the Courts in future and let's hope these prawns on the bench in the Queensland take it into their tiny brains.

Their decision making was so mind numbingly stupid, even a novice could see what a house of cards they had built.

Makes me wonder what the High Court Judges said about their 'learned?' bretheren in private. Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38867 Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #1299 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 4:32pm You do realise that your own Posts in this Thread are inconsistent with that? I'm saying no more on that matter.
Back to top	IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1300 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 5:19pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 4:32pm:

You do realise that your own Posts in this Thread are inconsistent with that? I'm saying no more on that matter.

here we go the old scatter gun comment again...who would have thought...

Aussie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 2:59pm:

cods wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 2:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 2:44pm:

The cover up is no accident, but, in my pretend scenario (which we saw as flies on the wall) we know all he did was push her away to pause her attack....no intent other than that.

because you wrote the story.......

funn y but you didnt write the real story and there were no flies on the wall..

all we had was one persons version and according to him he WASNT THERE HE WAS ASLEEP>>>

there was NO ACCIDENT>...you story would have a grain of truth if that is what he claimed from day one.....even after her body... one could say..

well yes I suppose... that could have happened that way..

you are blowing in the wind mate..

he lawyers if they were any good would have gone for a re trial...

this way they are gone and they know it..

their whingeing will be all about saving their face.. they know Gerard killed her...

intent or not he KILLED HER>

Cods it is impossible to keep up with that scatter gun of yours, but the whole point of the pretend scenario was to demonstrate to you that post death behavior does not alter what in fact occurred pre-death. The High Court decision amounts to a check list for defence lawyers in future.......and the clear message is ~ keep your client's mouth shut as if something unconnected with the events leading up to death is said, a Jury might use it to conclude the facts were not as they really were or are known and can be proven.

here we go again... scattergun Roll Eyes

who would expect aussie to use that... Wink

yet you think your imagine scenario is fine.. because you can play pretend you are a fly on the wall what a joke.. what a way to view a murder,. Grin

anyone would think an accidental death had never occurred before now....

why aussie I am sure his lawyers wished they had known about you and your theories before the trial.. Grin

I bet they never thought of that one.. Roll Eyes

so when the cops knock on your dorr... all you say is name and address..and I want to speak to my lawyer.. Cool

a dead give away you have something to hide...

of course no one will think that though... alls well everyone... never talk to a cop get your legals to do it.. like Baden Clay did.. Cheesy

baden clay as far as I know.. went in the box because he insisted on doing so....he thought his ego and charm would be enough.....couldnt he charm the birds out of the trees????>>>>he sure thought so...

Neferti wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 3:47pm:

Obviously, aussie's "legal advice" is ...

IF the Police want to talk to you about "anything", don't tell them a thing, lawyer up and give them a reason to consider that you are very obviously guilty (of whatever).

IF you are innocent (of anything), lawyer up and keep your mouth shut. The Police will try to "stitch you up".

What a lot of crap.

IF you are INNOCENT and it REALLY was an ACCIDENT, why not just ring 000 and call the Ambulance, meanwhile starting CPR?

WHY tell a bunch of porkies and dig yourself a MUCH LARGER HOLE?

As always, you should tell the TRUTH. LIARS like Baden-Clay deserve exactly what they got and I hope he doesn't get to try another "appeal" .... he should take up writing a book on painting, homosexual sex, or something. Grin

aussie thinks its ok to not tell the truth... leave it to your lawyers to put in all the twists on everything....like" B.C didnt kill his wife she committed suicide".. Roll Eyes

..

another lawyer theory Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1301 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 5:26pm

R.B. when you think about it its all about interpretation of the LAW.....

so aussies version of the LAW is the LAW
and everyone should obey it..

is kind of up the creek really..

not that he will ever admit to that...

,he sneered at the protest... and lets face it it would have gone ahead if there hadnt been a massive protest against a pathetic way the law was read.. bu the 3 wise men ooops wo..men..

I dont care much for armchair lawyers......I know what I think to be justice...and if there is a petition to be signed against anything as vile as what happened in this case I will sign it..

good luck to Allisons family and friends I wish you all peace of mind and may Allison rest in peace.

as I am positive she did not deserve any of this.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38867
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1302 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 5:44pm

Quote:

so when the cops knock on your dorr... all you say is name and address..and I want to speak to my lawyer.. Cool Cool Cool

a dead give away you have something to hide...

No, it is not (legally) said give away at all. The Law acknowledges your right to silence. This decision makes it very important that people consider using it far more often.

Quote:

of course no one will think that though... alls well everyone... never talk to a cop get your legals to do it.. like Baden Clay did.. Cheesy

That is not what he did. He mouthed off and that is why he is now, today, in Prison for 'life.'

Quote:

baden clay as far as I know.. went in the box because he insisted on doing so....

How do you know what he insisted, cods. That is just wild speculation.

Quote:

he thought his ego and charm would be enough.....couldnt he charm the birds out of the trees????>>>>he sure thought so...

Sheesh. Where do you get these notions from? Mills and Boon?

Quote:

aussie thinks its ok to not tell the truth...

Not what I said at all. I said....'shut yer mouth.' I did not say, 'Open it and lie.'

Quote:

leave it to your lawyers to put in all the twists on everything....like" B.C didnt kill his wife she committed suicide".. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes..

I did not say that either. I said this decision today reinforces (in the highest Court we have) what was always my strong advice to clients.....

"Exercise your right to silence, tell the Cops nothing. Say nothing to anybody. Nobody, not your Mother, Father, Wife, anybody ~ even your Priest. The only person on this planet you SHOULD tell the truth to is me, your Lawyer. I suggest you not bullshit to me. You and I both know it is Wednesday. If you want me to go into that Court and attempt to convince anyone it is Saturday, we both know I'd be wasting everyone's time."

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1303 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 7:46pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 5:44pm:

Posted on: Today at 5:44pm
Quote:
so when the cops knock on your dorr... all you say is name and address..and I want to speak to my lawyer.. Cool Cool Cool

a dead give away you have something to hide...

No, it is not (legally) said give away at all. The Law acknowledges your right to silence. This decision makes it very important that people consider using it far more often.

when you are being charged... not when you have just got a knock on the door surely and are being asked if you know someone of this name?...

we do have a few freedoms in this country still.

if every time a copper knocked on a door he had to read you your rights... then god help us all.

like yourself I wasnt in court and do not have privy to know what went on between GBC and his team..

Aussie wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 5:44pm:

baden clay as far as I know.. went in the box because he insisted on doing so....

How do you know what he insisted, cods. That is just wild speculation.

I am going by the book written by a person who was in the court room every day...

quote.page 391

Michael Byrne had requested the court start later than usual, to give the defence time to talk to their client about his decision. Proceedings where scheduled to start after 11am.

this from further down....

quote page 391
.if Gerard declined to give evidence, as expected the trial would be adjourned until Monday..

page 392..

quote.

The trial resumed at 11.27am.and Michael Byrne rose to drop a bombshell..
'Your Honor, Gerard Baden-Clay will give evidence,will call evidence and will produce evidence in the trial'
Gerard was rolling the dice and betting on his ability as as salesman to convince the jury of his innocence.

from the book by David Murray..

the murder of ALLISON BADEN-CLAY.

that says to me his team tried to talk him out of giving evidence...

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38867
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #1304 - Aug 31^st, 2016 at 8:00pm

As someone who has done it a zillion times, it is nothing more than what is required. You have to ask, you have to advise the options, and then the decision is the clients. I always got that in writing from them. There is no 'insistence' as you asserted.

Quote:

not when you have just got a knock on the door surely and are being asked if you know someone of this name?...

we do have a few freedoms in this country still.

if every time a copper knocked on a door he had to read you your rights... then god help us all.

Given today's decision, I would not be at all surprised if everyone just told Plod to piss off, as you are entitled to.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 31^st, 2016 at 8:07pm by Aussie »

IP Logged