I see Alinta has not responded to most of the questions posed by cods, so I'll try.
Quote: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...
Correct.
Quote:as you have said .. so many variations...and we all have one...but only the appeal court has any rights..
Correct.
Quote: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..
Sound practical reasons. Say the Supreme Court gave him ten years for manslaughter...which is what he has now been found guilty of. Later, the High Court upholds the Appeal and say, re-instates the conviction for murder. He would then need to be re-sentenced. Better to leave it as it is until the Appeal is heard.
Quote:that should we look at this appeal... should the accused not be required to tell us the real story of what took place....
He maintains he had nothing to do with it cods. He has sworn under oath he had nothing to do with it.
Quote: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............
I've seen far worse things done with a murder victim after their death.
Quote: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???...
Nah. He cannot appeal the manslaughter conviction. For one thing, his own Lawyers conceded that a manslaughter conviction was open on the evidence. I disagree, but, as I have said, the Umpire has given his decision on that.
Quote: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????????.....
From recollection, the pollen was consistent with vegetation where that woman was buried. Allison's autopsy demonstrated that at some point vegetation consistent with that outside her home got in her hair. Hence the theory that they argued and she fell with her head contacting that vegetation
outside her home. Quote: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?????....
If they had bullet holes in their head from the rifle found in the car and his prints are on the rifle, it is clear evidence of intent to kill.
Quote: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...???
There
is a clear line in the sand. The standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt,' which is not a term of legal art. It means what it says in everyday speech.
Quote: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???>..
He
could have, but there was
no proof that he did...even the autopsy demonstrates that.
Forum
Pages: 
Baden Clay wins appeal. (Read 100204 times)
