Murders

[Super Nova]

Okay, now I'll throw my oar in the water. I reckon there was reasonable doubt and there should have been an acquittal. Apart from all the other possible scenarios raising that doubt, the most important piece of logic for me was this. Powell, if guilty, had to move the corpse from his home in the dead of night to where she was found, many kilometers from the home. If there was a scuffle at home which resulted in her death, there was a liklihood at least one or more of the kids would be disturbed from their sleep by the noise of that scuffle. So, given that, and even without that, all that had to happen for him to exposed as a killer was for one of the kids to get out of bed and ........... find BOTH their parents missing.

Nah.

Your logic assumes kids are light sleepers.

Also Kids could be used to noise and even arguments when they are in bed and will not get up. the are thankful when it goes quite.

Your assumption that the kids would wake up or leave their rooms is a flawed one.

My daughter does not wake up all night when she is in bed. Even if we make a huge noise like dropping a dining set. Logic flawed. The jury thought the same clearly.

[Aussie]

Okay, now I'll throw my oar in the water. I reckon there was reasonable doubt and there should have been an acquittal. Apart from all the other possible scenarios raising that doubt, the most important piece of logic for me was this. Powell, if guilty, had to move the corpse from his home in the dead of night to where she was found, many kilometers from the home. If there was a scuffle at home which resulted in her death, there was a liklihood at least one or more of the kids would be disturbed from their sleep by the noise of that scuffle. So, given that, and even without that, all that had to happen for him to exposed as a killer was for one of the kids to get out of bed and ........... find BOTH their parents missing.

Nah.

Your logic assumes kids are light sleepers.

Also Kids could be used to noise and even arguments when they are in bed and will not get up. the are thankful when it goes quite.

Your assumption that the kids would wake up or leave their rooms is a flawed one.

My daughter does not wake up all night when she is in bed. Even if we make a huge noise like dropping a dining set. Logic flawed. The jury thought the same clearly.

Yeas, all of that. However, what a huge punt to take. Three kids, and only one needed to be disturbed, get out of bed and find both parents gone. Reasonable doubt. There was plenty of room for it.

1. No cause of death.
2. Nothing to link him with disposing of the body.
3. Nothing to link him with causing the death......zero evidence of struggle in the House.
4. A small amount of her blood in the car........I bet there are small amounts of your blood, or your wife's, or your kids in your car.
5. His denial under oath.

Does the existence of disputed marks on his cheek prove anything about the death. No. Where was the forensic evidence of remnants of his skin under her nails? There was none. He was screwing some other woman. That is nowhere near evidence he killed his wife. He was in financial strife. That too is not evidence he killed his Wife. He had motive and opportunity.

6. We know she was depressed. We know she was taking prescribed drugs for depression. We know she was emotionally pissed off about the adultery. So, she gets out of bed and goes for a walk.

7. Who is to say what then happened? Did some opportunist offer a shoulder to cry on? Did she just wander off, and either deliberately or inadvertently fall off that bridge.

To convict, the Jury had to exclude all of that as possible before they could convict.

You add that ingredient I specifically find most unlikely ~ he manages to kill her in the House and not disturb the sleep of one of three kids ~ on the Crown case, there was resistance which must have been noisy, by her given the scratches ~ that he would leave the kids alone in that House while he, at most killed her outside where the kids would not be disturbed, and/or at least bunged her in the car and drove her to that bridge, dropped her off UNOBSERVED and returned home. Nah, that does not logically stack up.

I'm not saying he is innocent. I am saying there was insufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. It is not enough to dispel that by simply stating the obvious ~ that the Jury convicted. I've seen, and so have Prosecutors, Juries arrive at perverse outcomes.

[Super Nova]

Ummm.

If all you say is true you have a fair point.

I assume he will appeal. I would if innocent.

With all the above being true... why would a jury convict. There must be more to it than your statements above.

Why do you think they return a guilty verdict?
What do you think made their minds up... I know it's speculation and I have no courtroom or jury service experience?

[Aussie]

Ummm.

If all you say is true you have a fair point.

I assume he will appeal. I would if innocent.

With all the above being true... why would a jury convict. There must be more to it than your statements above.

Why do you think they return a guilty verdict?
What do you think made their minds up... I know it's speculation and I have no courtroom or jury service experience?

Everything I have posted is fact. Why would the Jury convict? I have no idea. If they had acquitted, there would be no-one who would reasonably challenge that outcome, because there really are far two many unanswered questions.

[Super Nova]

Aussie,

You forced me to look into the case more closely.

You are correct it was a case built on circumstantial evidence, but the accumulation of evidence was powerful, so they say.

Here is what I found on the link provided.



These are not shaving cuts.... so that is bullshit.

Why would there be "dripping blood found in the boot of Allison's four-wheel drive". Why in the boot.

I don't think your position above is well founded.

Crown case against Baden-Clay circumstantial

By its own admission, the crown's case against Baden-Clay was a circumstantial one, but the accumulation of evidence was powerful.

A post-mortem examination failed to determine a cause of death due to decomposition, and apart from a chipped tooth and possible bruising, there were no fractures to Allison's body.

A court photo shows marks on the face of accused murderer Gerard Baden-Clay.

But forensic pathologist Dr Nathan Milne believed Allison did not die from natural causes.

The crown said she died at the hands of her husband, the last person to see her alive.

At the time of her disappearance, Baden-Clay had marks on his face and body that drew the attention of police.

He had excuses for them, though: he had cut himself shaving in a rush; the marks on his neck were where he had crushed a caterpillar that had landed on him while he was watching one of his daughters compete in a cross-country race; and marks on his hand were from a screwdriver that slipped while he was helping renovate a friend's house, but marks on his chest and shoulder could not be explained by him.

However, three forensic experts testified that marks on Baden-Clay's face were likely fingernail scratches and Baden-Clay's claim that they were from a razor was simply implausible.

They said marks on Baden-Clay's body could also be from scratching, although they were less conclusive.

Then there was the dripping blood found in the boot of Allison's four-wheel drive. DNA testing confirmed it was Allison's.

[Neferti]

Okay, now I'll throw my oar in the water. I reckon there was reasonable doubt and there should have been an acquittal. Apart from all the other possible scenarios raising that doubt, the most important piece of logic for me was this. Powell, if guilty, had to move the corpse from his home in the dead of night to where she was found, many kilometers from the home. If there was a scuffle at home which resulted in her death, there was a liklihood at least one or more of the kids would be disturbed from their sleep by the noise of that scuffle. So, given that, and even without that, all that had to happen for him to exposed as a killer was for one of the kids to get out of bed and ........... find BOTH their parents missing.

Nah.

Who is Powell? The guy's name is Gerard Baden-Clay.

[Aussie]

Okay, now I'll throw my oar in the water. I reckon there was reasonable doubt and there should have been an acquittal. Apart from all the other possible scenarios raising that doubt, the most important piece of logic for me was this. Powell, if guilty, had to move the corpse from his home in the dead of night to where she was found, many kilometers from the home. If there was a scuffle at home which resulted in her death, there was a liklihood at least one or more of the kids would be disturbed from their sleep by the noise of that scuffle. So, given that, and even without that, all that had to happen for him to exposed as a killer was for one of the kids to get out of bed and ........... find BOTH their parents missing.

Nah.

Who is Powell? The guy's name is Gerard Baden-Clay.

I guess you don't know who his Grandfather was. Hence my slip.

(No emoticons were mis-used in the making of this Post.)

[Aussie]

Aussie,

You forced me to look into the case more closely.

You are correct it was a case built on circumstantial evidence, but the accumulation of evidence was powerful, so they say.

Here is what I found on the link provided.



These are not shaving cuts.... so that is bullshit. That was not positively established. The evidence was that they were unlikely to be razor cuts ~ note, unlikely not impossible.

Why would there be "dripping blood found in the boot of Allison's four-wheel drive". Why in the boot. Was it the boot. I thought it was on one of the rear doors. No matter, as I said, I'll bet there is evidence of dripping blood of mine in every car I have ever driven. It is not uncommon.

I don't think your position above is well founded. My position is that in my opinion there is room for reasonable doubt, and I further say that if he had been acquitted, that decision would not have been publicly criticised as out of the question.

Crown case against Baden-Clay circumstantial

By its own admission, the crown's case against Baden-Clay was a circumstantial one, but the accumulation of evidence was powerful. That is a mere opinion.

A post-mortem examination failed to determine a cause of death due to decomposition, and apart from a chipped tooth and possible bruising, there were no fractures to Allison's body. Yes.

A court photo shows marks on the face of accused murderer Gerard Baden-Clay.

But forensic pathologist Dr Nathan Milne believed Allison did not die from natural causes. The defence never claimed otherwise.

The crown said she died at the hands of her husband, the last person to see her alive. Yeas, that was the Crown contention. The Defence was opposite.

At the time of her disappearance, Baden-Clay had marks on his face and body that drew the attention of police. Yes.

He had excuses for them, though: he had cut himself shaving in a rush; the marks on his neck were where he had crushed a caterpillar that had landed on him while he was watching one of his daughters compete in a cross-country race; and marks on his hand were from a screwdriver that slipped while he was helping renovate a friend's house, but marks on his chest and shoulder could not be explained by him.

However, three forensic experts testified that marks on Baden-Clay's face were likely fingernail scratches and Baden-Clay's claim that they were from a razor was simply implausible. Implausibe, hey, and not impossible.

They said marks on Baden-Clay's body could also be from scratching, although they were less conclusive.

Then there was the dripping blood found in the boot of Allison's four-wheel drive. DNA testing confirmed it was Allison's. See above. Also note there was no evidence of any cut to the body which could explain the blood.

It is being made public today that the Coppers had bugged flowers on the funeral coffin hoping that Clay would make an adverse comment if he was alone with the coffin. That apparently did not happen as he arrived later than expected at the Funeral. Further, they bugged his phone particularly listening in on calls to his mistress, in the hope he said something adverse. I wonder if that was disclosed to Defence prior to the Trial. It is just as relevant that he said nothing incriminating to the mistress as it would have been if he said something incriminating.

Also bear in mind what I have already said about how likely it was that one of the kids would either have seen, heard a ruckus or randomly woken to find both parents missing, and also why was his skin tissue not found under her fingernails? Far too many questions.

[Neferti]

I don't care what Aussie says but thought that since he was a Solicitor, he might have a view about the carrying on in the Dock by Gerard. He must be boring the Jury to tears with his "we were ..... when Princess Diana died" and "we were ...... when Keiren Perkins won Gold" ... blah blah blah Oh and "my GGGrandfather was Robert Baden Powell (scout founder)" .... he is trying to make out he wouldn't hurt a fly and is a great bloke but ALL evidence points to him killing Allison in their backyard (leaves from plants in her hair), then piling her body in the car (blood stains there) and throwing the poor woman over the bridge. I think his Dad and sister are also involved or at least know about what happened. He is trying to say that the scratch marks on his face were made by a "blunt razor" .... sure, pull the other one. He's a FIGJAM (fuck I'm good just ask me) type of bloke. Hope he gets Life!

Who is Powell? The guy's name is Gerard Baden-Clay.

I guess you don't know who his Grandfather was. Hence my slip.

What a piss weak excuse, aussie! I was the person who brought it to the attention of this thread. You stuffed up. Jerk.

[Aussie]

Re blood in cars ~ here's a famous example. Link.