Australian Politics Forum - Baden Clay wins appeal.

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #720 - Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:29pm

Alinta wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 4:47pm:

"did you think the same....you probably know more about it than I.. I must admit I hadnt heard of it.."

Yep Cods.......at conclusion of all the evidence, I believed he would be acquitted.

At the point during the trial when the placecard evidence was given, I thought maybe, just maybe, the Prosecution would be able to put Rayney at least at the scene of the gravesite......but they didn't have anything to establish this.

Anyway, from the questions I see you've been asking today........and the answers supplied by Aussie, I think you are close to understanding why the Appeal Court downgraded the Baden Clay murder verdict. Of course it doesn't mean you have to like it..........but what it does mean is that you've gained more knowledge of the legal process at work.

yes I do understand about the INTENT part I really do..

but what I dont understand is..

how can anyone PROVE INTENT....

which means if NO ONE CAN.. then it is automatically manslaughter..

the murder is given the benefit of the doubt..

as the only person that can argue that point is dead..

is that really a level playing field????>..

the other side doesnt HAVE TO PROVE anything..

so lets be honest here... neither did the appeal court???

why doesnt someone tell me HOW THE HELL YOU PROVE INTENT????

what DOES "INTENT" LOOK LIKE...

as you can tell I am more for justice for the victim... Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #721 - Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:33pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:

Where did I get that from?....From the Appeal Summary, sweetheart Cheesy

No you didn't.

Why do you keep lying?

Gerard check her life insurance policy but before she died....and most people know that insurance doesnt get paid in murder.. and or I believe in suicide....

he was probably looking to reduce the payments...seeing as how desperate he was for money.... but who knows..he can tell us anything now cant he?....hes almost home.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Online OzPolitic Posts: 38877 Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #722 - Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:38pm He is not calling it anything. He denies all involvement. An Appeal Court with three Supreme Court Judges 'called' it manslaughter.
Back to top	IP Logged

Neferti Gold Member Offline Posts: 7965 Canberra Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #723 - Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:39pm bump
Back to top	IP Logged

Neferti Gold Member Offline Posts: 7965 Canberra Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #724 - Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:58pm MURDER
Back to top	IP Logged

Neferti Gold Member Offline Posts: 7965 Canberra Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #725 - Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:58pm MURDER
Back to top	IP Logged

Neferti Gold Member Offline Posts: 7965 Canberra Gender:	Re: Baden Clay wins appeal. Reply #726 - Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:59pm Murder
Back to top	IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #727 - Jan 11^th, 2016 at 11:11pm

Neferti wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Murder

wow whos having a tanny now??? Grin

according to the news....we could have to wait some time now....as they have stopped them announcing any sentencing.....until after this appeal....

for the life of me I cannot see them not reducing the sentence..

why bother with all this... when at the end of the day nothing changes....

and dont forget Gerard thought he had a right to know the "new" sentence...NOW... he is so used to getting his own way.. Roll Eyes

I think he knows what it could be!!!! as we know his lawyer would have a pretty good idea.. how these appeal judges work

poor dear how frustrating for him...isnt it terrible the way they treat him?.

Back to top

IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #728 - Jan 12^th, 2016 at 1:51pm

I hear your frustration with proving intent Cods !!!!!!

I’ll attempt to explain it by example of evidence in the Baden Clay trial……everyday language, not legal terminology as such.

One of the Baden-Clay’s daughters was the last to see both parents in the home………Allison on the couch watching TV and Gerard walking down the stairs wearing pyjamas and shoes and stated he was going to do the ironing. His daughter asked a question about the shoes and he told her “I always wear shoes to do the ironing”.

Despite Gerards’s evidence that he went to bed at 10pm leaving Allison on the couch watching TV, other evidence shows that at some stage, he and Allison moved outdoors.

Who suggested this, or why, we don’t know…….but it is reasonable that they did not want the children to be woken.
Did Gerard fess up to the ongoing relationship with McHugh before she and Allison met next day at the conference? Or…
Did Allison ask questions about Gerard’s relationship with McHugh as part of the discussion sessions recommended by her counsellor? Or ……
Something else entirely?

We do not know why, but the evidence shows that outdoors, an altercation occurred.
Did Gerard attack her because he “lost it” with being continually pressed for intimate details about the extra marital relationship? Did Allison scratch his face to ward off the attack? Did Gerard push her away resulting in a fall that killed her? After his face was scratched, did Gerard strangle her?
Did Allison scratch his face because he confessed the relationship with McHugh was ongoing? Did Gerard retaliate by pushing her away resulting in a fall that killed her? Did Gerard retaliate by strangling her?
WE JUST DON’T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALTERCATION……..all are plausible and there is no evidence that one is more so than the others. Did he mean/intend to kill her? Or did he mean/intend to push her away out of arms reach?

To prove intent to kill would require all other possible scenarios I've suggested above be eliminated by Prosecution evidence, leaving no reasonable doubt that he meant to kill her.

So at this stage, there is no evidence of proof beyond reasonable doubt of intent to kill.

Moving on to the autopsy evidence……
Cause of death could not be determined. As each day passed with further decomposition, many clues were lost. IF for example the cause of death was found to be strangulation, the Prosecution would have evidence to eliminate the other possible scenarios I’ve mentioned above and would use cause of death evidence to show/prove intent.

Hope this helps!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

red baron

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 10204
Blue Mountains
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #729 - Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:16pm

Allison Baden-Clay is dead. The reason she is dead is because of Gerard Baden-Clay.

The Appeal Court's decision to find him guilty of manslaughter confirms this.

The argument centres on whether he murdered her.

Gerard Baden-Clay has not assisted the Court in any way in its finding of Manslaughter. They have in their own minds deciding that he was responsible for her death.

His silence is deafening.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Online

OzPolitic

Posts: 38877
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #730 - Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:18pm

red baron wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:16pm:

Allison Baden-Clay is dead. The reason she is dead is because of Gerard Baden-Clay.

The Appeal Court's decision to find him guilty of manslaughter confirms this.

The argument centres on whether he murdered her.

Gerard Baden-Clay has not assisted the Court in any way in its finding of Manslaughter. They have in their own minds deciding that he was responsible for her death.

His silence is deafening.

He has been far from silent. He gave evidence and was cross-examined.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #731 - Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:19pm

Alinta wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 1:51pm:

Posted by: Alinta Posted on: Today at 1:51pm
I hear your frustration with proving intent Cods !!!!!!

I’ll attempt to explain it by example of evidence in the Baden Clay trial……everyday language, not legal terminology as such.

One of the Baden-Clay’s daughters was the last to see both parents in the home………Allison on the couch watching TV and Gerard walking down the stairs wearing pyjamas and shoes and stated he was going to do the ironing. His daughter asked a question about the shoes and he told her “I always wear shoes to do the ironing”.

Despite Gerards’s evidence that he went to bed at 10pm leaving Allison on the couch watching TV, other evidence shows that at some stage, he and Allison moved outdoors.

Who suggested this, or why, we don’t know…….but it is reasonable that they did not want the children to be woken.
Did Gerard fess up to the ongoing relationship with McHugh before she and Allison met next day at the conference? Or…
Did Allison ask questions about Gerard’s relationship with McHugh as part of the discussion sessions recommended by her counsellor? Or ……
Something else entirely?

We do not know why, but the evidence shows that outdoors, an altercation occurred.
Did Gerard attack her because he “lost it” with being continually pressed for intimate details about the extra marital relationship? Did Allison scratch his face to ward off the attack? Did Gerard push her away resulting in a fall that killed her? After his face was scratched, did Gerard strangle her?
Did Allison scratch his face because he confessed the relationship with McHugh was ongoing? Did Gerard retaliate by pushing her away resulting in a fall that killed her? Did Gerard retaliate by strangling her?
WE JUST DON’T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALTERCATION……..all are plausible and there is no evidence that one is more so than the others. Did he mean/intend to kill her? Or did he mean/intend to push her away out of arms reach?

To prove intent to kill would require all other possible scenarios I've suggested above be eliminated by Prosecution evidence, leaving no reasonable doubt that he meant to kill her.

So at this stage, there is no evidence of proof beyond reasonable doubt of intent to kill.

Moving on to the autopsy evidence……
Cause of death could not be determined. As each day passed with further decomposition, many clues were lost. IF for example the cause of death was found to be strangulation, the Prosecution would have evidence to eliminate the other possible scenarios I’ve mentioned above and would use cause of death evidence to show/prove intent.

Hope this helps!!!

thank you yes and no alinta...I know I am a bugger I see things from a different angle I have always been the same..things are never straight forward...

as you have said .. so many variations...and we all have one...but only the appeal court has any rights..

tell me this....having his sentence down graded.. sorry if thats the wrong thing but thats how all us upsetters see it..... why would they not.. tell him.. the accused..

that should we look at this appeal... should the accused not be required to tell us the real story of what took place....

no kidding... manslaughter still means she is dead...and he was there....and he did some terrible things after her death.. remember she has a family... as well as 3 girls...who deserve to know the truth............

if he gets away with manslaughter he will still appeal that because he has never admitted anything...btw I didnt know about the outside part.. is that in the book???...

in your case that you sent me... the autopsy showed pollen in the nose of the dead body...from her own front verge and she was buried under dirt......yet this autopsy on Allison gave us not one clue...her hair was full of debris which I thought was an amazing bit of forensics...how come the bloody autopsy showed nothing????????.....

if the only witness is the accused and he claims he wasnt there...how on earth can anyone PROVE what he was thinking???........men do snap you know.. look at the man whos just killed his two little boys... even his wife says he was the perfect father...........?????............would you like to prove what was going through HIS MIND?????....

this business of PROOF beyond... needs looking at ...and I still dont know where the line in the sand is FOR PROOF?.. is it just conjuring a scenario that suits the appeal court judges...???

if as you say it took place outside the home.. and her hair was full of stuff she ended up on the ground....why couldnt he have throttled her on the ground....hand over nose and mouth... he is big enough...how do you prove he didnt???>..

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 140108
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #732 - Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:23pm

red baron wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:16pm:

Allison Baden-Clay is dead. The reason she is dead is because of Gerard Baden-Clay.

The Appeal Court's decision to find him guilty of manslaughter confirms this.

The argument centres on whether he murdered her.

Gerard Baden-Clay has not assisted the Court in any way in its finding of Manslaughter. They have in their own minds deciding that he was responsible for her death.

His silence is deafening.

Silence?

No.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Online

OzPolitic

Posts: 38877
Gender: male

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #733 - Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:30pm

cods wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:19pm:

Alinta wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 1:51pm:

Posted by: Alinta Posted on: Today at 1:51pm
I hear your frustration with proving intent Cods !!!!!!

I’ll attempt to explain it by example of evidence in the Baden Clay trial……everyday language, not legal terminology as such.

One of the Baden-Clay’s daughters was the last to see both parents in the home………Allison on the couch watching TV and Gerard walking down the stairs wearing pyjamas and shoes and stated he was going to do the ironing. His daughter asked a question about the shoes and he told her “I always wear shoes to do the ironing”.

Despite Gerards’s evidence that he went to bed at 10pm leaving Allison on the couch watching TV, other evidence shows that at some stage, he and Allison moved outdoors.

Who suggested this, or why, we don’t know…….but it is reasonable that they did not want the children to be woken.
Did Gerard fess up to the ongoing relationship with McHugh before she and Allison met next day at the conference? Or…
Did Allison ask questions about Gerard’s relationship with McHugh as part of the discussion sessions recommended by her counsellor? Or ……
Something else entirely?

We do not know why, but the evidence shows that outdoors, an altercation occurred.
Did Gerard attack her because he “lost it” with being continually pressed for intimate details about the extra marital relationship? Did Allison scratch his face to ward off the attack? Did Gerard push her away resulting in a fall that killed her? After his face was scratched, did Gerard strangle her?
Did Allison scratch his face because he confessed the relationship with McHugh was ongoing? Did Gerard retaliate by pushing her away resulting in a fall that killed her? Did Gerard retaliate by strangling her?
WE JUST DON’T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALTERCATION……..all are plausible and there is no evidence that one is more so than the others. Did he mean/intend to kill her? Or did he mean/intend to push her away out of arms reach?

To prove intent to kill would require all other possible scenarios I've suggested above be eliminated by Prosecution evidence, leaving no reasonable doubt that he meant to kill her.

So at this stage, there is no evidence of proof beyond reasonable doubt of intent to kill.

Moving on to the autopsy evidence……
Cause of death could not be determined. As each day passed with further decomposition, many clues were lost. IF for example the cause of death was found to be strangulation, the Prosecution would have evidence to eliminate the other possible scenarios I’ve mentioned above and would use cause of death evidence to show/prove intent.

Hope this helps!!!

thank you yes and no alinta...I know I am a bugger I see things from a different angle I have always been the same..things are never straight forward...

as you have said .. so many variations...and we all have one...but only the appeal court has any rights..

tell me this....having his sentence down graded.. sorry if thats the wrong thing but thats how all us upsetters see it..... why would they not.. tell him.. the accused..

that should we look at this appeal... should the accused not be required to tell us the real story of what took place....

no kidding... manslaughter still means she is dead...and he was there....and he did some terrible things after her death.. remember she has a family... as well as 3 girls...who deserve to know the truth............

if he gets away with manslaughter he will still appeal that because he has never admitted anything...btw I didnt know about the outside part.. is that in the book???...

in your case that you sent me... the autopsy showed pollen in the nose of the dead body...from her own front verge and she was buried under dirt......yet this autopsy on Allison gave us not one clue...her hair was full of debris which I thought was an amazing bit of forensics...how come the bloody autopsy showed nothing????????.....

if the only witness is the accused and he claims he wasnt there...how on earth can anyone PROVE what he was thinking???........men do snap you know.. look at the man whos just killed his two little boys... even his wife says he was the perfect father...........?????............would you like to prove what was going through HIS MIND?????....

this business of PROOF beyond... needs looking at ...and I still dont know where the line in the sand is FOR PROOF?.. is it just conjuring a scenario that suits the appeal court judges...???

if as you say it took place outside the home.. and her hair was full of stuff she ended up on the ground....why couldnt he have throttled her on the ground....hand over nose and mouth... he is big enough...how do you prove he didnt???>..

I'd love to answer all that, but I'll leave it for Alinta.

Back to top

IP Logged

Alinta

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1470
Melbourne
Gender: female

Re: Baden Clay wins appeal.
Reply #734 - Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:32pm

"if as you say it took place outside the home.. and her hair was full of stuff she ended up on the ground....why couldnt he have throttled her on the ground....hand over nose and mouth... he is big enough...how do you prove he didnt???>."

That's another possible scenario...........but as the cause of death could not be determined, there was no evidence to suggest he throttled her.

Back to top

IP Logged