Baden Clay Trial

[azureline**]

Allison Baden Clay Murder 2 years ago

I was reading up on this today, as the trial started Monday.

The senior Baden Clay was on the stand today and gave evidence about something his wife told him about his daughter in law..................................I thought they usually objected and called that heresay?

Don't they do that in Australia? have I watched too many American crime shows?

[love*today]

I just butted in cause I'm sick of seeing apparent jury experts because they sat in one once.

[azureline**]

really?

I didn't say I was an expert..............

[freddie*rooster]

---

@paintsew007 wrote:

ref "A different legal rep wouldn't have been able to do anything different/better."

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................

I totally disagree and I am not convinced that it is 'right' to convict someone of being guilty of murder on circumstantial evidence.

---

Paints, do you know he called the Insurance Company to lodge a claim prior to Allison's body being identified?

[lionrose.7]

TV last night also showed he had scratch marks on his chest.

[freddie*rooster]

Detectives even bugged the flowers at the church at Allisons funeral. He thought he was so clever, the boys had him pegged from day 1.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@love*today wrote:
Lol

Heaps of people have sat on jury's. The judges advice is not forgotten and if for some strange reason it is, you can ask for him to repeat it.all evidence can be taken to the jury room and watched/read/seen again if the jury need to do so.
I have sat on a jury were some women agreed on a guilty verdict just because of the situation and they would not listen to any discussion or look at evidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are right,  juries - or rather jurors - can be very strange animals. I sat on a jury once  where one man refused to believe that anything short of a confession could prove guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt..' 

Paints believes that the trial was somehow 'engineered' or "cajoled" . I'm sure this is a genuine belief and of course  she is quite entitled to express it. What we would like her to explain though is which specific aspects of the trial have led her to that belief. 

[love*today]

No-one has to explain themselves to you lol

[j*oono]

---

@imastawka wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, all murder cases are circumstantial unless there

were witnesses.

How many conspiracies do you subcribe to anyhow?

---

That's about the size of it.  No eye witness, but I'm sure plenty of DNA and forensic evidence points to the fact that this lying dog of a man murdered his lovely wife and the mother of his children.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@love*today wrote:
No-one has to explain themselves to you lol

---

No-one has to explain themselves to anyone, but if someone offers a fairly radical dissenting opinion in a public  discussion  forum, of course people are going to be curious and ask what has led them to form that opinion.. Whether they choose to do so or not is, naturally ,entirely up to them.

[cherry*135]

Post 228 - There was NO DNA of GBC's found in connection with the murder. None that could be used as evidence.If there was the prosecution woukd have had a more solid case.

All the evidence was circumstantial.