Australian Politics Forum - Baden Clay wins appeal.

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #615 - Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:35pm

Aussie wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 5:32pm:

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 4:52pm:

I dont care what you say or what the freaking law says....

And there we have it.

Told you, Aussie.

Indeed you did. I have to make an apology to Lord Herbert. I think I've worked it out now. He is not the greatest troll ever seen on the Internet.

so I STALK YOU...???? SHOW EVERYONE WHERE I STALK YOU?????

ASKING STOOOOOPID IGNORANT QUESTIONS...

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38876
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #616 - Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:45pm

No need to abuse me cods. (Not only is it a Rule breach, it is a waste of your time.) There is no sanctimony. There is me (and others) trying to explain a legal concept to you as simply and logically as I can, and you then resorting to the amazing......'I don't care what the Law says,' or similar.

I posted 'Jesus wept' because even though I have told you in this Thread, (I even found photos and showed them to you/all) you still have no idea that there were not 'three men.' There were two men, and one woman who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

cods, I am entirely free to address topics here, and there is no way anybody (unless they are Mods) can control who is able to address whom. If it were so, that would hardly be freedom of speech would it cods?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 140099
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #617 - Jan 9^th, 2016 at 7:18pm

Aussie wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 5:32pm:

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 4:52pm:

I dont care what you say or what the freaking law says....

And there we have it.

Told you, Aussie.

Indeed you did. I have to make an apology to Lord Herbert. I think I've worked it out now. He is not the greatest troll ever seen on the Internet.

She doesn't even have the sense to understand what it is she's saying.

"I dont care what ... the freaking law says...."

Incredible.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #618 - Jan 9^th, 2016 at 7:30pm

Panther wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 5:49pm:

osted by: Panther Posted on: Today at 5:49pm
cods wrote Today at 4:52pm:
12 good men and true..said he was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt........and so do a lot of other people....

3 blokes say he wasnt......

and we have to sit back and accept it......really...

can you tell me whats the point of having a jury...in the first place.. when their verdict can be throw out by 3 men........

Believe it or not, the jury system was founded with one objective in mind..........to protect the innocent.

It may not always be perfect, but it's way better than having but one juror....the representative of the government......a judge, to be supreme determiner of guilt or innocence of a person.

Someone said:

Quote:
The jury is charged with the task of impartially listening to all the evidence, & after fair deliberation, come to a conclusion of guilt or innocence to the best of their ability.

On the other hand, if the jury feels the law is unjust, we the people must recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is obviously contrary to the law as instructed by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the courts must abide by that decision.

The jury system is the ultimate peaceful use of power by the people over their government.

If the government insists on the guilt of any person, that the jury acquits due to being unable to come to a decision, then that government has the right to present better, more compelling evidence, to a new jury, at a retrial.

BTW.....a personal note....I believe that if the government loses at trial, the government should be responsible for all court costs....the defendant should bear responsibility only for his lawyer, except on retrial, whereas if acquitted on retrial, the government should pay all the defendant's court costs plus the defendant's legal costs.

I agree panther... my argument is..

the appeal should have been for a retrial...not just throw out the murder charge and replace it with manslaughter...as far as I can see now every domestic murder we get confronted with.. will end up the same way......

why wouldnt it??...

who kills their partner [no witness]then throws them away.. then gets found guilty of murder.by a jury....they appeal and it gets changed down to manslaughter just like that...

beyond reasonable doubt.. Roll Eyes

the DPP has lodged an appeal....which means he has interpreted it differently...

why does it only need one judge to hear a murder trial...yet 3 to hear an appeal????......

dont answer that I know....ITS THE LAW...

maybe we should do away with the jury and have 3 judges and be done with it..

panther many trials abort... look at this case..

Quote:

NO ANSWER IN 9 MONTHS

IT was the longest criminal trial in NSW history involving a single accused, with more than 160 days of evidence and at least $1 million spent on running the case, but a jury yesterday declared they were unable to reach a verdict on whether or not Robert Xie is the Lin family’s killer.

After 12 days of deliberations a jury of eight men and four women informed Justice Elizabeth Fullerton that they could not reach a unanimous decision, nor could they make a majority verdict of 11-1.

it would be interesting to know what verdict the judge would have bought in had it been a judge only trial..

thats if the mighty ones on here would allow them to have one..

Back to top

IP Logged

Panther Gold Member Offline My Heart beats True for the Red White & Blue... Posts: 11639 Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #619 - Jan 9^th, 2016 at 8:42pm ....
Back to top	"When the People fear government there is Tyranny; When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!" ' Live FREE or DIE! ' IP Logged

red baron

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 10204
Blue Mountains
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #620 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:02am

Until this thread I had a great amount of respect for your knowledge of the law Aussie.

But your application of it in this case exposes huge weaknesses in your thought process.

It is obvious you are desperate to defend the 'three wise monkeys' decisions in this matter.

Their decisions are bullsh.t that's right bullsh.it if I want to spell it that way I will.

Your responses to the points I made are practically childlike and therefore have no weight attached to them e.g. What the botanist discovered, which has huge significance forensically you have blown away with a 'whoopeeedo" what bullsh.t sort of response is that?

The three wise monkeys got it wrong, Gerard Baden-Clay murdered his wife for financial and sexual gain in his own life.

His life with Allison had gone down the toilet due to his weakness as a man then he decided to solve everything (in his own mind) by murdering Allison then getting a million dollar payday for his trouble.

If you can't see that then you are far less of a human being than I thought you were. You let 'The Law' blind your vision to what is patently obvious to the huge majority of posters on this site.

WAKE UP!!!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

red baron Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 10204 Blue Mountains Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #621 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:03am Three wise monkeys...couldn't get it right...deaf, dumb and blind 'There are none so blind as those who will not see'
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:42am by red baron » IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11639
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #622 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:41am

cods wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 7:30pm:

Panther wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 5:49pm:

Believe it or not, the jury system was founded with one objective in mind..........to protect the innocent.

It may not always be perfect, but it's way better than having but one juror....the representative of the government......a judge, to be supreme determiner of guilt or innocence of a person.

The jury is charged with the task of impartially listening to all the evidence, & after fair deliberation, come to a conclusion of guilt or innocence to the best of their ability.

On the other hand, if the jury feels the law is unjust, we the people must recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is obviously contrary to the law as instructed by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the courts must abide by that decision.

The jury system is the ultimate peaceful use of power by the people over their government.

If the government insists on the guilt of any person, that the jury acquits due to being unable to come to a decision, then that government has the right to present better, more compelling evidence, to a new jury, at a retrial.

I agree panther... my argument is..

the appeal should have been for a retrial...not just throw out the murder charge and replace it with manslaughter...as far as I can see now every domestic murder we get confronted with.. will end up the same way......

why wouldnt it??...

who kills their partner [no witness]then throws them away.. then gets found guilty of murder.by a jury....they appeal and it gets changed down to manslaughter just like that...

beyond reasonable doubt.. Roll Eyes

the DPP has lodged an appeal....which means he has interpreted it differently...

why does it only need one judge to hear a murder trial...yet 3 to hear an appeal????......

dont answer that I know....ITS THE LAW...

maybe we should do away with the jury and have 3 judges and be done with it..

panther many trials abort... look at this case..

Quote:

NO ANSWER IN 9 MONTHS

IT was the longest criminal trial in NSW history involving a single accused, with more than 160 days of evidence and at least $1 million spent on running the case, but a jury yesterday declared they were unable to reach a verdict on whether or not Robert Xie is the Lin family’s killer.

After 12 days of deliberations a jury of eight men and four women informed Justice Elizabeth Fullerton that they could not reach a unanimous decision, nor could they make a majority verdict of 11-1.

it would be interesting to know what verdict the judge would have bought in had it been a judge only trial..

thats if the mighty ones on here would allow them to have one..

I think you have lost sight of the most important fact....our freedom & liberty are our most precious possessions.

Now, if we've broken the law, we must be willing to pay the price of that transgression....the loss of our freedom & liberty, but the government via the courts must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", that we have surely broken their law if they wish to take away our freedoms & liberties.

So it comes down to "REASONABLE DOUBT", a subjective term, which if you asked 100 people to define, you'd get 50 different variations.

All in all it's designed to convict the obvious, no doubt about it criminal, & leave every one else to go free. If a criminal unfortunately slips through the net because the case against them is overly circumstantial, or the prosecution fails the deliver enough hard evidence, then that's ok, because sooner or later they will slip up, & get their just due....if not in this life, the next.

Quote:

Reasonable Doubt is a term used in jurisdiction of anglo-saxon countries. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.

Generally, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. Beyond "the shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.

If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. A related idea is Blackstone's formulation
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:49am by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #623 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:48am

"it would be interesting to know what verdict the judge would have bought in had it been a judge only trial..

thats if the mighty ones on here would allow them to have one.. "

I agree with you in so far as......in a judge only trial, reasons for the verdict must be given in the judgement.

If you are interested I can link you to a judge only trial in WA....high profile lawyer charged with the murder of his wife.......he was acquitted.

There is a legal process for application for a judge only trial.

Back to top

IP Logged

red baron

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 10204
Blue Mountains
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #624 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:54am

Yes Panther, nothing wrong with what you said.

However...if you are applying that to Gerard Baden-Clay

Then the circumstantial case against him is extraordinarily strong

Motive: A million dollar insurance policy and freedom to explore his sexual wanderings

A toxic relationship with Allison brought on by his sexual relationships with in the main his own Secretary at his Real Estate business

He tried to borrow $400,000 to save his business. He failed in that endeavour. He was in deep financial straits

Further Evidence: The evidence of the botanist that proved Allison Baden-Clay body had been moved to the creek. (See my previous post for detail)

The cuts on his face (see my previous post for detail)

Allison Baden-Clay blood in the rear of her car overpowering circumstantial case against Gerard Baden-Clay

This taken as a whole provides a case which the Jury obviously saw clearly in sending him down

I don't know what world the 3 Appeal Judges (*referred to as the three wise monkeys) were thinking but clearly it wasn't about the facts in this case

THE JURY GOT IT RIGHT!i

Back to top

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11639
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #625 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:56am

Alinta wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:48am:

"it would be interesting to know what verdict the judge would have bought in had it been a judge only trial..

thats if the mighty ones on here would allow them to have one.. "

I agree with you in so far as......in a judge only trial, reasons for the verdict must be given in the judgement.

If you are interested I can link you to a judge only trial in WA....high profile lawyer charged with the murder of his wife.......he was acquitted.

There is a legal process for application for a judge only trial.

IMHO.....judge only trials are too subject to individual corruption, for it's far to easy to develop bias in the mind of a single jurist, as opposed to 12 average, basically honest & unbiased people, examined by both the prosecution & defense to be so, who are set to decide your fate to the best of their ability based on fact & truth.

Judge only trials are too often the tools of a tyrannical government, far too disinterested in truth & justice.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:02am by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11639
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #626 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:13am

red baron wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:54am:

Yes Panther, nothing wrong with what you said.

However...if you are applying that to Gerard Baden-Clay

Then the circumstantial case against him is extraordinarily strong

Motive: A million dollar insurance policy and freedom to explore his sexual wanderings

A toxic relationship with Allison brought on by his sexual relationships with in the main his own Secretary at his Real Estate business

He tried to borrow $400,000 to save his business. He failed in that endeavour. He was in deep financial straits

Further Evidence: The evidence of the botanist that proved Allison Baden-Clay body had been moved to the creek. (See my previous post for detail)

The cuts on his face (see my previous post for detail)

Allison Baden-Clay blood in the rear of her car overpowering circumstantial case against Gerard Baden-Clay

This taken as a whole provides a case which the Jury obviously saw clearly in sending him down

I don't know what world the 3 Appeal Judges (*referred to as the three wise monkeys) were thinking but clearly it wasn't about the facts in this case

THE JURY GOT IT RIGHT!

I

wasn't arguing his guilt or innocence, but the method of determining that......

Now, it seems that there is a severe dysfunction associated with the judicial system in this country, who answer to nobody, but have reign over all......

The jury is supposed to represent the will of the people. Therefore, the Judicial System must be revisited, stripped down, & built back up to reenforce the will of the jury, over the will of a judge or tribunal.....after all the judiciary is part of the government, & the government should be totally answerable to the people....who at any time, rightfully or wrongfully, might just find themselves as defendants.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:19am by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #627 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:35am

Alinta wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:48am:

"it would be interesting to know what verdict the judge would have bought in had it been a judge only trial..

thats if the mighty ones on here would allow them to have one.. "

I agree with you in so far as......in a judge only trial, reasons for the verdict must be given in the judgement.

If you are interested I can link you to a judge only trial in WA....high profile lawyer charged with the murder of his wife.......he was acquitted.

There is a legal process for application for a judge only trial.

thank you I would be interested.. the reason I said it was because the book "The Fal".. is in front of a judge only....I have just finished her summing up.... and it is very interesting to read her judgements all very clear .. the reason too is a judge would know all the tricks lawyers pull...and also the accused would pull......

what did interest me was her attention to BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT...she mentioned it in case of an appeal......and in her mind there was no doubt at all...in fact she said she felt that Lisa was dead in the apartment..and wasnt killed by the fall... Roll Eyes

a lawyer being acquitted of murder??

who would have thought??? Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 140099 Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #628 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:37am Why don't the courts listen to glorified parking inspectors and drunk housewives? They could solve all our crime problems.
Back to top	IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #629 - Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:39am

Panther wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:56am:

Alinta wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:48am:

"it would be interesting to know what verdict the judge would have bought in had it been a judge only trial..

thats if the mighty ones on here would allow them to have one.. "

I agree with you in so far as......in a judge only trial, reasons for the verdict must be given in the judgement.

If you are interested I can link you to a judge only trial in WA....high profile lawyer charged with the murder of his wife.......he was acquitted.

There is a legal process for application for a judge only trial.

IMHO.....judge only trials are too subject to individual corruption, for it's far to easy to develop bias in the mind of a single jurist, as opposed to 12 average, basically honest & unbiased people, examined by both the prosecution & defense to be so, who are set to decide your fate to the best of their ability based on fact & truth.

Judge only trials are too often the tools of a tyrannical government, far too disinterested in truth & justice.

Pls don't misunderstand me Panther.........I believe in the Jury System.

In agreeing it WOULD be interesting, I was thinking how closely might a Judge only reasoning verdict in the original trial accord with the Court of Appeal judgement.

Back to top

IP Logged