Quote:COMMENT: There was no evidence to suggest that there ‘wasn’t’ violence between the couple. We do know that the relationship was toxic.
If she had been assaulted previously, there may have been signs or even complaints made to police, the counsellor, friends, work colleagues or family. No evidence of that kind was produced.
Your use of the cliche 'toxic' gets you into trouble. He was philandering. The word 'toxic' suggests that, and much much more.
Quote:"A reasonably open hypothesis to that (Baden-Clay's) wife had attacked him, scratching his face.
"In endeavouring to make her stop he had killed her without intending to do so, with his conduct thereafter being attributable to panic.
COMMENT: Why is this a reasonable hypothesis? Why I could reasonably say there is a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that Gerard and Alison argued vehemently, that he attacked her attempting to strangle her and that he sustained the scratches on his face as Alison desperately fought for her life. Why isn’t this scenario equally as plausible as that of the Appeal Judges?
You have answered your own question. It is plausible, just as the other is plausible.....just as you concede ~ "equally as plausible."
Quote:HOW THEY REACTED
Peter Shields, the lawyer for Gerard Baden-Clay, asked the public to read the judgment themselves (see below).
"They'll then be able to read for themselves the very considered reasons of a very experienced court," he said.
"They explain in very simple easy-to-understand language how they came to the conclusion that they did.
"I think it's important for the public to understand that it's open justice … they can make their own view based on the facts as the court has."
COMMENT: This last sentence nails it. The Appeal Court Judges have come up with a scenario, ‘that they think happened'.
Wrong. They do not think it happened at all. They say it may have happened, is a plausible explanation, and therefore the Crown has failed to prove the intention to kill.
Quote:In other words they have made it up as they went along. Their hypothesis doesn’t hold water and cannot stand up to scrutiny.
I have asked you before.
Why doesn't it hold water. Put it under scrutiny, not just say it does not stand up.
Explain why it does not stand up.