The Court of Appeal essentially said that the only evidence available in a circumstantial case to permit an inference of intent to kill was the evidence
of lies told by the accused to police and in the witness box."
They said that by itself is not enough, I imagine what the DPP has been doing is combing through the transcript and looking for other evidence that might help support that there
was an intent to kill."Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gerard-badenclay-appeal-success-unlikely-retired-supreme-court-judge-says-20151230-glwz6g.html#ixzz3x53R88Rl
Follow us: @brisbanetimes on Twitter | brisbanetimes on Facebook
so lying under oath is ok.. if you kill someone...good to know..
its interesting lisa....
in a court of appeal...lying or actions after the event is not taken into account...
its strange too how the accused swears blacks white he didnt do it had nothing to do with it..
.he didnt kill her...
yet his own lawyer says he did???.....

when will Gerard sue his lawyer for defamation???...
I would have thought his lawyer should be fighting for an innocent verdict......
surely he believes his client.