Kytro wrote on Dec 30
th, 2015 at 4:03pm:
I hear you Aussie but when looking at all the circumstances involving this case and what I personally consider was the overwhelming factor in his decision to murder her, the one million dollar get out of financial ruin clause.
I am on the side of the original Jury. In any case there will always be legal argument on the finer points of the law.
But we live and die by the Jury system and I am personally convinced the Jury got it dead right in this matter.
The entire reason the appeal was successful was because the panel of judges believed there was an alternative plausible explanation, and in that circumstance there shouldn't have been a murder trail in the first place.
It does not matter if murder was "more likely" or not. It matters only that it wasn't the only viable explanation.
Murder -v- Manslaughter?
Murder seems to mean that you INTENDED to kill. Manslaughter seems to me that it was an "accident" ... although when trying to rape and strangle you COULD say to yourself " geeze, what the f**k am I doing?" and stop doing it .... but you don't. That's manslaughter?
I am not certain but I presume that, in Australia, Murder and Manslaughter can attract the same "incarceration", i.e. 25 years without Parole.
So, the people protesting GBC's "downgrade" from Murder to Manslaughter are only upset because they think he will get out of Gaol early? I thought he sentence would NOT change. IF it does, I , too will be pissed off.
There is no proof positive of HOW she died............ where do you get 'strangulation'?