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?

[cherry*135]

Katy - what I wrote about the scratches was what the Defence claims. Part of what was presented in court and what the jury has to weigh up. Not my opinion.

[polksaladallie]

---

@am*3 wrote:
Polkas - "I see the judge has given the jury the option of manslaughter "(yes, he did). ..."when neither the defence or prosecution have "( the Judge did not say that last part those are your words, and those obviously were what I was replying to)

---

No, not my words.

 Justice Byrnes is explaining the difference between murder and manslaughter.

“Justice Byrnes, “With regard to murder, you must be satisfied that Gerard caused the death of his wife with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Manslaughter is an unlawful killing, with the intention to harm not being involved.

Neither the prosecution or the defence contends manslaughter.

Both murder and manslaughter involve unlawful killing.  To convict of murder, you must be sure that he intended to kill, even if you believe he lied about the scratches.

Justice Byrne told the jury that they could consider the lessor charge of manslaughter.

“You may wish to consider first murder, which is the more serious charge.

“If you find the accused guilty of murder, you do not need to consider manslaughter.

“But if you find the accused not guilty of murder, then consider the alternative of manslaughter.”

[cherry*135]

See my post re correction of my error. Direct quotes from the source in italics or quotation marks would avoid confusion.

Timeline 9 July ( only what has been reported)

3:02pm Recap:

Earlier, Justice Byrne told the jury it could consider the lessor charge of manslaughter.
"You may wish to consider first murder, which is the more serious [charge]," he said.
"If you find the accused guilty of murder, you do not need to consider manslaughter.
"But if you find the accused not guilty of murder, then consider the alternative of manslaughter."

12:16pm: Justice Byrne has explained how the jury may convict Gerard Baden-Clay of murder.
"Before you convict the accused of murder, you must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt of two distinct matters:
* That he caused the death of his wife; and
* That he did so with an intention to kill her or at least to cause her some grevious bodily harm.
"Neither the prosecution nor the defence contend for manslaughter."

11:54am: "To bring in a verdict of guilty ... guilt should not only be a rational inference, it must be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances," Justice Byrne said.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gerard-badenclay-trial-live-coverage-day-17-week-5-201407...

[polksaladallie]

So glad you agree.

[azureline**]

---

@am*3 wrote:
See my post re correction of my error. Direct quotes from the source in italics or quotation marks would avoid confusion.

Timeline 9 July ( only what has been reported)

3:02pm Recap:

Earlier, Justice Byrne told the jury it could consider the lessor charge of manslaughter.
"You may wish to consider first murder, which is the more serious [charge]," he said.
"If you find the accused guilty of murder, you do not need to consider manslaughter.
"But if you find the accused not guilty of murder, then consider the alternative of manslaughter."

12:16pm: Justice Byrne has explained how the jury may convict Gerard Baden-Clay of murder.
"Before you convict the accused of murder, you must be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt of two distinct matters:
* That he caused the death of his wife; and
* That he did so with an intention to kill her or at least to cause her some grevious bodily harm.
"Neither the prosecution nor the defence contend for manslaughter."

11:54am: "To bring in a verdict of guilty ... guilt should not only be a rational inference, it must be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances," Justice Byrne said.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gerard-badenclay-trial-live-coverage-day-17-week-5-201407...

---

I think that guilty is a rational inference?

[katymatey*]

---

@am*3 wrote:
Katy - what I wrote about the scratches was what the Defence claims. Part of what was presented in court and what the jury has to weigh up. Not my opinion.

---

I find it hard to believe that he would gouge his face once, and go on to do it again. Either that or he was using a bread knife to shave with.

Looks to me like she has scratched down his face and he has grabbed her hand so that the scratch veers off towards the bottom.

[cherry*135]

Polks " So glad you agree."

Don't know what you are referring to.

Katy - lets hope the jury goes with the Prosecution on the cuts on his face - that they are fingernail scratches from Allison.

[cherry*135]

Disturbing that one of the jurors had searched the internet and printed off a page by a US commentator about the how a jury might deliberate and had it in the jury room.

After being the jury being told clearly by the Judge several times previously the jurors must not enquire outside the courtroom about anything relating to the trial.

[polksaladallie]

---

@azureline** wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

I see the judge has given the jury the option of manslaughter, when neither the prosecution or defence have.

If I had to guess, I would say there was a struggle and death occurred (but was not intentional), and he panicked and tried to cover it up.

---

Yes I am beginning to think a manslaughter verdict will be the result. I didn't know that the Judge could do that? Do we hope for a fast result?

---

Hope so, Az.  Tomorrow?   Although this jury doesn't seem to be very bright.   I don't agree with the jury system that we have, but I can't see it changing any time soon.

[cherples]

---

@am*3 wrote:
The secondary DNA sample under fingernail too small to be tested. How can that be evidence unless it was tested and shown to be GBC's?


Defence - scratches caused by razor. No witness when these occurred, therefore no one can be 100% certain what caused them.

---

True, but have you ever seen a man with years of shaving experience accidently give himself 2 matching cuts down the face while shaving?  I'd like to have seen him replay exactly how he managed that.