Quote:Mark & Quote Posted on: Today at 3:37pm
Why...Aussie...you want why?
There are a million reasons why from a desperate man at the end of his rope.
Caught out numerous times on being a philanderer, his business in a shambolic state, facing financial ruin.
At odds with his wife over his cheating.
I asked for evidence that he intended to kill his wife....not a re-run of the reasons he may have wished she was no longer part of his life. We all gets the schitts at one time or another, and in some cases, that leads to a situation where physical interaction results. That does not necessarily mean either party intended to kill the other.
Quote:Now...WHY has Gerard Baden-Clay not come out and confessed that he accidentally killed his wife? He has the three wise monkeys on his case and he would do only 6 years (average) as against a Life Sentence for Murder.
The reason why he hasn't come out is that the three wise monkeys have already done all his spade work for him.
The reason is obvious. He maintains that he had nothing to do with her death.....nothing at all.
Quote:On his behalf in a grand gesture towards Justice, the three wise monkeys have hypothesized that he 'Accidentally killed his wide'.
Gerard can put his feet up on the desk and wait for the dust to settle.
No.....all the Appeal Court did was point out that the Prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had an intent to kill. The Court did not say that he accidentally killed her. They said that, so far as the evidence established, the Crown had not excluded that open hypothesis.
Quote:It is a fact that only 11% of Appeals get up in the High Court so if he plays it cool, which he has so far, he is highly likely to do only six years for murdering Allison Baden-Clay.
Not bad...FOR MURDER. (No that wasn't a typo)
If the appeal to the High Court fails, and the manslaughter conviction stays, then I very much doubt he will get just six years.
Lastly, in that link posted by Alinta concerning the WA Lawyer acquitted of murdering his Wife, there are excellent and very clear explanations on this very matter. There are some quite remarkable similarities (and some differences) with the Baden-Clay case. Have you read the link? Takes about 15 minutes.
Some relevant paragraphs from that link to the WA case:
Quote: The reliance by the State on circumstantial evidence requires that I consider the possibility that the proven facts do not necessarily point to guilt. A verdict of guilty cannot be returned unless the proven facts are such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than that the accused is guilty. Guilt must not only be a rational inference, but it must be the only rational inference that the proven facts enable me to draw.
13
The drawing of inferences from proven facts is different from
speculation. There is no room in the criminal court for speculation or speculative theories. Inferences can only be drawn if the facts proven by the evidence properly support the drawing of the inferences.
14
In the context of circumstantial evidence, it is essential to apply
strictly the burden of proof. It would be entirely inappropriate to start with a presumption of guilt and then consider whether the evidence is consistent with that view. This is a process commonly adopted in everyday life, but it must be avoided in the criminal court. The accused is presumed to be innocent unless the evidence positively proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Forum
Pages: 
Baden Clay wins appeal. (Read 100040 times)
